Signs of Imminent Dying and Change in Symptom Intensity During Pharmacological Treatment in Dying Nursing Home Patients: A Prospective Trajectory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether it is possible to determine signs of imminent dying and change in pain and symptom intensity during pharmacological treatment in nursing home patients, from day perceived as dying and to day of death. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal trajectory trial. SETTING: Forty-seven nursing homes within 35 municipalities of Norway. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 691 nursing home patients were followed during the first year after admission and 152 were assessed carefully in their last days of life. MEASUREMENTS: Time between admission and day of death, and symptom severity by Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS), pain (mobilization-observation-behavior-intensity-dementia-2), level of dementia (clinical dementia rating scale), physical function (Karnofsky performance scale), and activities of daily living (physical self-maintenance scale). RESULTS: Twenty-five percent died during the first year after admission. Increased fatigue (logistic regression, odds ratio [OR] 1.8, P = .009) and poor appetite (OR 1.2, P = .005) were significantly associated with being able to identify the day a person was imminently dying, which was possible in 61% of the dying (n = 82). On that day, the administration of opioids, midazolam, and anticholinergics increased significantly (P < .001), and was associated with amelioration of symptoms, such as pain (mixed-models linear regression, 60% vs 46%, P < .001), anxiety (44% vs 31%, P < .001), and depression (33% vs 15%, P < .001). However, most symptoms were still prevalent at day of death, and moderate to severe dyspnea and death rattle increased from 44% to 53% (P = .040) and 8% to 19% (P < .001), respectively. Respiratory symptoms were not associated with opioids or anticholinergics. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological treatment ameliorated distressing symptoms in dying nursing home patients; however, most symptoms, including pain and dyspnea, were still common at day of death. Results emphasize critical needs for better implementation of guidelines and staff education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01920100.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".