MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265636641 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2015.0100

An Order Protocol for Respiratory Distress/Acute Pain Crisis in Pediatric Palliative Care Patients: Medical and Nursing Staff Perceptions

2016· article· en· W2265636641 on OpenAlexaff
Gwenaëlle Bidet, Lysanne Daoust, Michel Duval, Thiérry Ducruet, Baruch Toledano, Nago Humbert, France Gauvin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careNursingPerceptionDistressRespiratory distressFamily medicineIntensive care medicineClinical psychologyAnesthesiaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An order protocol for distress (OPD), including respiratory distress and acute pain crisis, has been established for pediatric palliative care patients at Sainte-Justine Hospital (SJH). After discussion with the patient/his or her family, the OPD is prescribed by the attending physician whenever judged appropriate. The OPD can then be initiated by the bedside nurse when necessary; the physician is notified after the first dose is administered. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to evaluate the perceptions and experience of the medical/nursing staff towards the use of the OPD. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all physicians/nurses working on wards with pediatric palliative care patients. Answers to the survey were anonymous, done on a voluntary basis, and after consent of the participant. RESULTS: Surveys (258/548) were answered corresponding to a response rate of 47%. According to the respondents, the most important motivations in using the OPD were the desire to relieve patient's distress and the speed of relief of distress by the OPD; the most important obstacles were going against the patient's/his or her family's wishes and fear of hastening death. The respondents reported that the OPD was frequently (56%) or always (36%) effective in relieving the patient's distress. The respondents felt sometimes (16%), frequently (34%), or always (41%) comfortable in giving the OPD. They thought the OPD could never (12%), rarely (32%), sometimes (46%), frequently (8%), or always (1%) hasten death. Physicians were less favorable than nurses with the autonomy of bedside nurses to initiate the OPD before notifying the physician (p = 0.04). Overall, 95% of respondents considered that they would use the OPD in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this survey shows that respondents are in favor of using the OPD at SJH and find it effective. Further training as well as support for health care professionals are mandatory in such palliative care settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207