MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109923857 · doi:10.1017/s1478951511000575

Meeting the family: Measuring effectiveness of family meetings in a specialist inpatient palliative care unit

2012· article· en· W2109923857 on OpenAlexaff
Breffni Hannon, Valerie O’Reilly, Kathleen Bennett, Karen Breen, Peter G. Lawlor

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryPalliative careFamily medicineWorkloadMedicineFamily memberNursingMultidisciplinary approachQuality of life (healthcare)Unit (ring theory)PsychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of palliative care as "an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness …" recognizes the importance of family members in this setting. In practice, family meetings account for a significant amount of the weekly workload in a specialist inpatient palliative care unit. Despite this, there is little empirical evidence to support the benefits of family meetings from the perspective of family members. METHOD: A prospective study over 6 months, invited a designated family member to complete a self-report instrument (SRI) and the Family Inventory of Needs (FIN) questionnaire prior to, immediately following, and 48 hours after a planned family meeting attended by several members of the multidisciplinary team. RESULTS: Thirty-one designated family members completed the study. The SRIs completed prior to a family meeting identified particular areas of concern and worry for family members, and also helped to generate an agenda based on the family's particular needs. The pre-meeting FIN identified areas of patient care of greatest importance to each family member, and asked them to rate whether particular care needs were presently met or unmet, in their opinion, by the healthcare team caring for the patient. Following the family meeting, repeat SRIs showed an overall reduction in concerns and increased confidence in dealing with those issues raised. Post-family meeting FIN scores confirmed a greater number of met care needs compared with pre-meeting scores, all of which were sustained over time. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study confirms the value of planned multidisciplinary family meetings for patients in specialist inpatient palliative care units. It identifies the often unmet needs of family members and the sustained benefits associated with formal family meetings.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207