Meeting the family: Measuring effectiveness of family meetings in a specialist inpatient palliative care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".