The Effect of Community-Based Specialist Palliative Care Teams on Place of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior research on community-based specialist palliative care teams used outcome measures of place of death and/or dichotomous outcome measures of acute care use in the last two weeks of life. However, existing research seldom measured the diverse places of care used and their timing prior to death. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine the place of care in the last 30 days of life. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who received care from a specialist palliative care team (exposed) were matched by propensity score to patients who received usual care in the community (unexposed) in Ontario, Canada. Measured was the percentage of patients in each place of care in the last month of life as a proportion of the total cohort. RESULTS: After matching, 3109 patients were identified in each group, where 79% had cancer and 77% received end-of-life home care. At 30 days compared to 7 days before death, the exposed group's proportions rose from 33% to 41% receiving home care and 14% to 15% in hospital, whereas the unexposed group's proportions rose from 28% to 32% receiving home care and 16% to 22% in hospital. Linear trend analysis (proportion over time) showed that the exposed group used significantly more home care services and fewer hospital days (p < 0.001) than the unexposed group. On the last day of life (place of death), the exposed group had 18% die in an in-patient hospital bed compared to 29% in usual care. CONCLUSION: Examining place of care in the last month can effectively illustrate the service use trajectory over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".