An Interhospital, Interdisciplinary Needs Assessment of Palliative Care in a Community Critical Care Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is a paucity of data on the provision of palliative care in the critical care settings of smaller community hospitals. This study aimed to identify the gaps that affect the provision of palliative care in a community critical care setting. SETTING: The study was set in a 10-bed, open intensive care unit and emergency department at a community hospital. METHODS: Mixed methods were used. Quantitative data included those drawn from databases and surveys; qualitative data included those collected from interviews, focus groups, and onsite walk-throughs and were analyzed with inductive coding techniques. RESULTS: Gaps were identified in palliative care, goals of care and end-of-life discussions, and resources. Community hospital healthcare professionals did not fully appreciate their essential contribution to the provision of palliative care in the intensive care unit. In addition, there was a lack of expertise, and a lack of interest in gaining expertise, in palliative/end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: Interrelated needs in a complex interprofessional, interhospital context were captured. Further studies are required to obtain data on palliative practice in the care of critically ill patients in various community hospital contexts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".