What "best practice" could be in Palliative Care: an analysis of statements on practice and ethics expressed by the main Health Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In palliative care it would be necessary to refer to a model. Nevertheless it seems that there are no official statements which state and describe that model. We carried out an analysis of the statements on practice and ethics of palliative care expressed by the main health organizations to show which dimensions of end-of-life care are taken into consideration. METHODS: The official documents by the most representative health organisations committed to the definition of policies and guidelines for palliative and end-of-life care had been considered. The documents were analysed through a framework of the components of end-of-life care derived from literature, which was composed of 4 main "areas" and of 12 "sub-areas". RESULTS: Overall, 34 organizations were identified, 7 international organisations, and 27 organisations operating on the national level in four different countries (Australia, Canada, UK and United States). Up to 56 documents were selected and analysed. Most of them (38) are position statements. Relevant quotations from the documents were presented by "areas" and "sub-areas". In general, the "sub-areas" of symptoms control as well as those referring to relational and social issues are more widely covered by the documents than the "sub-areas" related to "preparation" and to "existential condition". Indeed, the consistency of end-of-life choices with the patient's wishes, as well as completion and meaningfulness at the end of life is given only a minor relevance. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated model of the best palliative care practice is generally lacking in the documents. It might be argued that the lack of a fixed and coherent model is due to the relevance of unavoidable context issues in palliative care, such as specific cultural settings, patient-centred variables, and family specificity. The implication is that palliative care staff have continuously to adapt their model of caring to the specific needs and values of each patient, more than applying a fixed, although maybe comprehensive, care model.
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 | 0.094 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".