Evaluation of the Utility of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (revised) Scale on a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) Scale on a tertiary palliative care unit. METHOD: There were 92 admitted patients who participated in the study; the scale was administered to those able to participate on day 1 (n = 35, 38 percent), on day 4 (n = 20, 21 percent), and weekly. Patient comfort level with the ESAS-r tool was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) on day 4. Nurses' and physicians' perceptions of clinical assessment pre- and postimplementation of the scale were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of the participating physicians, 75 percent (n = 3) found that the ESAS-r Scale did not enhance clinical assessment; the proportion of nurses with that response was 37.5 percent (n = 6). Among these care providers, 50 percent of the physicians (n = 2) and 62 percent of the nurses (n = 10) thought that the scale was burdensome to patients; but 60 percent of the patients who were able to complete the comfort-level survey (n = 12) indicated that they did not find the scale burdensome. CONCLUSION: Patient acuity, team expertise, perceived burden to patients, and time commitment all influenced staff's recommendation not to implement the ESAS-r tool on the palliative care unit.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".