Comparison of Goals of Care Between Hemodialysis Patients and Their Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient-centered care requires knowledge of patients’ goals of care (GoC) on the part of health care providers (HCPs). Whether HCPs caring for in-center hemodialysis patients meet this criterion is uncertain. Objective: We designed and conducted a GoC survey among patients and HCPs within a single in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) program to determine whether HCPs have an understanding of their patients’ GoC. Design: This was a prospective comparative quantitative survey study. Setting: The study included a single Canadian maintenance ICHD center. Participants: These included hemodialysis patients and their primary nephrologists, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and dietitians. Methods and Measurements: Two surveys, one for patients and another for primary HCPs, were designed, piloted, and administered. For each participating patient, HCPs consisted of the primary nephrologist, nurse, social worker, pharmacist, and dietitian. Surveys included questions pertaining to 7 GoC themes. Patient-HCP agreement on the importance of each domain individually and the most important domain overall was assessed with kappa statistics. Factors influencing agreement were assessed with logistic regression in a secondary analysis. Results: A total of 173 patients were invited to participate, of whom 137 (79%) completed surveys. Fifty HCPs completed 623 corresponding surveys: 132 by physicians, 112 by nurses, 126 by pharmacists, 127 by social workers, and 126 by dietitians. A total of 70.1% and 78.8% of patients agreed with the importance of and would feel comfortable having GoC discussions, respectively, with their HCPs; 42.7% of physicians reported not having provided prognostic information to the corresponding patient. Patient-HCP agreement regarding GoC was poor (all κ < .25, all P values > .05). In adjusted analyses, only patients choosing “Be Cured” as the most important GoC was significantly associated with poorer HCP-patient agreement than expected (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.18). Limitations: This is a single-center study involving only ICHD patients. Conclusions: HCP perceptions of GoC did not agree with patients’ reported GoC. This study suggests the need for the design and validation of interventions to improve HCPs’ understanding of their patients’ GoC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".