Place of care: from referral to specialist palliative care until death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there are many poorly standardised studies focusing on place of death, there are limited data on place(s) of care during the final stages of disease. AIM: This study aims to identify where patients are cared for in the interval from referral to specialist palliative care until death. METHODS: All patients who died while under the care of a specialist palliative care service over a 6-month period were considered. RESULTS: Of the 507 patients included, 255 (50.3%) were men and 428 (84.4%) had a malignant diagnosis. The mean referral-to-death interval was 70 days (SD 113, Range 1-838). The majority (n=281, 55.4%) received care in a single care setting-hospital (28.4%), home (21.5%), nursing home/community hospital (4.1%), hospice (1.4%)-and had a shorter mean referral-to-death interval. Most patients with more than one care setting spent three-quarters of their time in their normal place of residence. A total of 199 (39.3%) died in hospital, 131 (25.8%) in hospice, 131 (25.8%) at home (25.8%) and 46 (9.1%) in a nursing home/community hospital. Patients referred by a general practitioner (n=80 patients, 15.8%) were more likely to be cared for at home (p<0.001), and die at home (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients received specialist palliative care across multiple care settings. Late referral is associated with a single domain of care. General practitioner involvement supports patient care and death at home. Place of care and ease of transfer between care settings may be better indicators of the quality of care we provide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".