MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2611490469 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2821

60. Using a pocket card to improve end-of-life care on clinical teaching units: A controlled trials

2007· article· en· W2611490469 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James Downar, Joseph Mıkhael

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineIntervention (counseling)End-of-life carePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although palliative and end-of-life is a critical part of in-hospital medical care, residents often have very little formal education in this field. To determine the efficacy of a symptom management pocket card in improving the comfort level and knowledge of residents in delivering end-of-life care on medical clinical teaching units, we performed a controlled trial involving residents on three clinical teaching units. Residents at each site were given a 5-minute questionnaire at the start and at the end of their medicine ward rotation. Measures of self-reported comfort levels were assessed, as were 5 multiple-choice questions reflecting key knowledge areas in end-of-life care. Residents at all three sites were given didactic teaching sessions covering key concepts in palliative and end-of-life care over the course of their medicine ward rotation. Residents at the intervention site were also given a pocket card with information regarding symptom management in end-of-life care. Over 10 months, 137 residents participated on the three clinical teaching units. Comfort levels improved in both control (p < 0.01) and intervention groups (p < 0.01), but the intervention group was significantly more comfortable than the control group at the end of their rotations (z=2.77, p < 0.01). Knowledge was not significantly improved in the control group (p=0.07), but was significantly improved in the intervention group (p < 0.01). The knowledge difference between the two groups approached but did not reach statistical significance at the end of their rotation. In conclusion, our pocket card is a feasible, economical educational intervention that improves resident comfort level and knowledge in delivering end-of-life care on clinical teaching units. Oneschuk D, Moloughney B, Jones-McLean E, Challis A. The Status of Undergraduate Palliative Medicine Education in Canada: a 2001 Survey. Journal Palliative Care 2004; 20:32. Tiernan E, Kearney M, Lynch AM, Holland N, Pyne P. Effectiveness of a teaching programme in pain and symptom management for junior house officers. Support Care Cancer 2001; 9:606-610. Okon TR, Evans JM, Gomez CF, Blackhall LJ. Palliative Educational Outcome with Implementation of PEACE Tool Integrated Clinical Pathway. Journal of Palliative Medicine 2004; 7:279-295.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.580
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→