Determinants of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Palliative Home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders allow home care clients to communicate their own wishes over medical treatment decisions, helping to preserve their dignity and autonomy. To date, little is known about DNR orders in palliative home care. Basic research to identify rates of completion and determinants of DNR orders has yet to be examined in palliative home care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine who in palliative home care has a DNR order as part of their advance directive. METHODS: Information on health was collected using the interRAI instrument for palliative care (interRAI PC). The sample included 470 home care clients from one community care access centre in Ontario. RESULTS: This study indicated that a preference to die at home (odds ratio [OR]: 8.29, confidence interval [CI]: 4.55-15.11); close proximity to death (OR: 0.99, CI: 0.99-1.00); daily incontinence (OR: 2.74, CI: 1.05-7.16); and sleep problems (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.02-3.37) are associated with DNR orders. In addition, clients who are more accepting of their situation are 5.67 times (CI: 1.67-19.27) more likely to have a DNR in place. CONCLUSION: This study represents an important first step to identifying issues related to DNR orders. In addition to proximity to death, incontinence, and sleep problems, acceptance of one's own situation and a preference to die at home are important determinants of DNR completion. The results imply that these discussions might often depend not only on the health of the clients but also on the clients' acceptance of their current situation and where they wish to die.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".