Organization-level principles and practices to support spiritual care at the end of life: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though most models of palliative care specifically include spiritual care as an essential element, secular health care organizations struggle with supporting spiritual care for people who are dying and their families. Organizations often leave responsibility for such care with individual care providers, some of whom are comfortable with this role and well supported, others who are not. This study looked to hospice programs founded and operated on specific spiritual foundations to identify, if possible, organizational-level practices that support high-quality spiritual care that then might be applied in secular healthcare organizations. METHODS: Forty-six digitally-recorded interviews were conducted with bereaved family members, care providers and administrators associated with four hospice organizations in North America, representing Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, and Salvation Army faith traditions. The interviews were analyzed iteratively using the constant comparison method within a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Nine Principles for organizational support for spiritual care emerged from the interviews. Three Principles identify where and how spiritual care fits with the other aspects of palliative care; three Principles guide the organizational approach to spiritual care, including considerations of assessment and of sacred places; and three Principles support the spiritual practice of care providers within the organizations. Organizational practices that illustrate each of the principles were provided by interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: These Principles, and the practices underlying them, could increase the quality of spiritual care offered by secular health care organizations at the end of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".