Specialist Physician Approaches to Discussing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Frail Older Adults: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the impact and importance of end-of-life discussions, little is known about how physicians discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with patients and their families. The necessary components for successful communication about CPR are poorly understood and an established framework to structure these conversations is lacking. Here, we were motivated to understand how physicians approach resuscitation planning with families when older patients have limited life expectancy and a high burden of illness. METHOD: Qualitative analysis was conducted of semi-structured interviews of 28 physicians of varying medical sub-specialties in a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: Most physicians explored the surrogates' goals and values, but few provided explicit information about the patients' overall health status or expected long-term health outcome related to CPR and underlying illnesses. CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in physicians' approaches to CPR discussions. The principle of autonomy is dominant with less emphasis on providing adequate information for effective decision-making.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".