Palliative day care: what does it cost to run a centre and does attendance affect use of other services?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the cost of palliative day care (PDC), assessing the value of all resources whether paid for or not. To examine different patterns of resource use resulting from attending PDC. METHODS: Five PDC centres in southern England provided detailed cost and resource use data, both paid and unpaid for. The PDC group were consecutive new referrals to a PDC centre who were well enough to be interviewed. The comparison group were recruited from home care teams. Data were collected at baseline, six to eight weeks and 12-15 weeks, on health and social care utilization in the month prior to interview. Data were divided into cohorts based on time from first interview to death and analysed separately. MAIN OUTCOMES: Annual cost of running a day care centre, and cost per patient per day. Use of all health and social care resources over time, stratified by time from death. Comparison of health and social care by stage of illness, and by PDC attendance. RESULTS: PDC cost around pound 54 per person per day in 1999, rising to pound 75 including unpaid resources. 145 patients had data on health and social care use. The patterns of care showed that, overall, patients accessed few services other than PDC. Comparison group patients did not access similar services elsewhere. PDC might substitute home nursing and GP care for patients who attend PDC at least three months before death but this data is not conclusive. Inpatient care was negligible for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A full economic evaluation could not be undertaken without robust evidence of the effectiveness of PDC. PDC centres made use of resources that were not paid for and shared resources with inpatient units, reducing costs. Service use was different for patients who attended compared with patients who did not. Similar services were not accessed elsewhere in the community; PDC does not appear to replicate other services for this group 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".