WA22 “it’s hard to watch people die for a living”: embedding the palliative approach into the organisational culture of long term care homes using participatory action research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long term care homes (LTC) in Canada have become a major location of death with 20% or more residents dying each year. Given the increasing age and frailty of residents, this is soon expected to increase to 40%. LTC has struggled to incorporate care of the dying into their day to day practice and culture because death is often absent from formalised policy and protocols. AIM: This workshop will share resources created during a 5 year participatory action research project in Ontario, Canada that aimed to improve the quality of life of people who were dying in long term care homes. METHODS: Through staff participation and empowerment, a process of organisational capacity development was undertaken. An extensive needs assessment was followed by creating an interprofessional palliative care resource team within each home. This team assessed the assets and gaps in their home and guided development of education, policy and clinical practices to address needs. Community partners with expertise in palliative care were engaged to support staff. RESULTS: A framework for palliative care in LTC integrates the palliative approach into the residents' journey from admission to death. Resources for organisational change were developed and organised into a toolkit that is unique to the LTC setting and context, and can be accessed at www.palliativealliance.ca CONCLUSION: The Quality Palliative Care in Long term Care Toolkit is the first of its kind in Canada. The toolkit can guide LTC management and staff through a process of culture change to incorporate a palliative approach to care.
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 | 0.043 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".