End‐of‐life care in long‐term care settings for older people: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most if not all of end-of-life care for people living in long-term care facilities is provided within the facility. This type of care is likely to increase with population ageing. This paper presents a literature review of the published literature on end-of-life care in long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, aged care facilities, residential care homes and continuing care settings, published between 2000 and 2004. A subset of literature that focuses on the development of practice and the identification of interventions to promote the provision of end-of-life care in care homes is examined in detail. Twenty-five papers are identified and these address modes of service delivery, the introduction of 'interventions' that facilitate care for individuals, and the development of tools. This work remains largely descriptive. Small-scale work dominates, reflecting the initial stages of knowledge development in this area of work. Suggestions for ways to expand the scope of the end-of-life care development work in long-term care settings are presented, as it is time to expand the horizons of these initiatives to become more rigorous and responsive to the needs of older people and their families in this care setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".