MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408968289 · doi:10.1177/082585970001600406

Palliative Care Crises in the Community: A Survey

2000· article· en· W2408968289 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret Mantz, Jacqueline Crandall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careOutreachUnit (ring theory)NursingMedicinePopulationFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rising age of the population, hospital cutbacks, and increased attention to home-based care for the dying, the community can expect to experience more intense care situations and a greater potential for palliative care crises developing in the home setting. Whether the crisis is precipitated by hemorrhage, severe uncontrolled pain, or agitation, the demands placed on the family unit and careprovider can be phenomenal. Only with a greater awareness of the difficulties encountered in the home setting can the community begin to respond to the needs of the family in crisis. An open-question survey regarding palliative care crises in the community was conducted among community visiting RNs, home care case managers, and palliative outreach clinicians in southwestern Ontario, The objectives were: 1) to determine the pattern of events that precipitated a crisis; 2) to understand how crises were managed; 3) to identify barriers to effective crisis management; 4) to investigate the impact on the family unit and careprovider. Participants were also asked to list the essential resources they needed to deal effectively with a crisis situation. This paper highlights the results of the survey and suggests implications for the future direction of palliative care in the home.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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