Resource utilization and cost analyses of home-based palliative care service provision: The Niagara West End-of-Life Shared-Care Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing emphasis is being placed on the economics of health care service delivery - including home-based palliative care. AIM: This paper analyzes resource utilization and costs of a shared-care demonstration project in rural Ontario (Canada) from the public health care system's perspective. DESIGN: To provide enhanced end-of-life care, the shared-care approach ensured exchange of expertise and knowledge and coordination of services in line with the understood goals of care. Resource utilization and costs were tracked over the 15 month study period from January 2005 to March 2006. RESULTS: Of the 95 study participants (average age 71 years), 83 had a cancer diagnosis (87%); the non-cancer diagnoses (12 patients, 13%) included mainly advanced heart diseases and COPD. Community Care Access Centre and Enhanced Palliative Care Team-based homemaking and specialized nursing services were the most frequented offerings, followed by equipment/transportation services and palliative care consults for pain and symptom management. Total costs for all patient-related services (in 2007 $CAN) were $1,625,658.07 - or $17,112.19 per patient/$117.95 per patient day. CONCLUSION: While higher than expenditures previously reported for a cancer-only population in an urban Ontario setting, the costs were still within the parameters of the US Medicare Hospice Benefits, on a par with the per diem funding assigned for long-term care homes and lower than both average alternate level of care and hospital costs within the Province of Ontario. The study results may assist service planners in the appropriate allocation of resources and service packaging to meet the complex needs of palliative care populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".