A paediatric palliative care programme in development: trends in referral and location of death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the formation of a paediatric palliative care programme providing care in hospital, at home or in hospice, ensuring continuity of care where the child and family desire. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis was performed on referral source, diagnosis and reason for discharge for patients referred to the Palliative Care Team at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada from 1999 to 2007. RESULTS: 341 children were referred. 24% had a neurological condition, 21% had genetic disorders or congenital anomalies, 20% had cancer, 18% had metabolic or neurodegenerative conditions and 17% had another diagnosis. The major sources of referral included paediatricians, neonatologists, oncologists and intensivists. 55% of the children have died. 58% of these died in hospital, 27% at home and 15% in hospice. Of the remaining 152 children, 7% were discharged from the programme after clinical improvement, 4% were moved to another geographic location or an adult centre, 2% were not eligible, 1% declined services and 4% were lost to follow-up. The remaining 90 children continue to be followed-up. In the hospitalised patients who died, the annual referral rate increased from 20% to >50%. IMPLICATIONS: Referral to the palliative care team has increased over time in all diagnostic categories and from all sources. Most children died in hospital; however, a significant number of families chose end-of-life care at home or in a hospice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".