Activities of Counsellors in a Hospice/Palliative Care Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined activities related to the provision of psychosocial care by counsellors in the hospice/palliative care setting. A qualitative design using written reports was used in an urban Canadian hospice/palliative care program. A convenient sample of 13 counsellors indicated the activities they typically performed in their work with patients and families. Thematic analysis of the activities directly related to patient and family care was performed and then validated by presenting these activities back to the counsellors in a group setting. Seven themes resulted: 1) companioning; 2) psychosocial assessment, planning, and evaluation; 3) counselling interventions; 4) facilitation and advocacy; 5) patient and family education; 6) consultation and reporting; and 7) team support. These thematic findings confirmed those of previous studies and also highlighted two additional findings. Team support was seen as an activity that directly affected client care, and there was a strong emphasis on the activity of companioning the dying and their families. Also discussed are implications of these results, as well as suggestions for further research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".