MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065419783 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2009.0372

Concentrating Hospital-Wide Deaths in a Palliative Care Unit: The Effect on Place of Death and System-Wide Mortality

2010· article· en· W2065419783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Brian Cassel, Mary Ann Hager, Ralph R. Clark, Sheldon M. Retchin, Janet Dimartino, Patrick J. Coyne, Jerry Riggins, Thomas J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlace of deathPalliative careQuarter (Canadian coin)Unit (ring theory)Mortality rateEmergency medicineIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We studied the impact of an 11-bed inpatient palliative care unit (PCU) on site of death and observed mortality in the health system, oncology, and palliative care units. Observers were concerned that an active PCU would attract dying patients and worsen comparative mortality rates for Medicare and U.S. News & World Report comparisons. METHODS: We reviewed 10 years of experience with all patients who died in the hospital before and after we opened our PCU in 2000. RESULTS: The PCU concentrated dying patients on the PCU but total deaths did not change over 10 years and remained approximately 3% of admissions. Within 2 years, one quarter of all health system decedents died on the PCU. The proportion who died on the oncology floor and general units declined, but the number of intensive care unit deaths did not change. CONCLUSIONS: An inpatient PCU did not increase the hospital-wide death rate. The PCU did change the site of death to a more appropriate venue for one quarter of patients.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207