The care experiences of patients who die in residential hospice: A qualitative analysis of the last three months of life from the views of bereaved caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing prominence of residential hospices as a place of death and that, in many regards, this specialized care represents a gold standard, little is known about the care experience in this setting. Using qualitative survey data, we examined the positive and negative perceptions of care in hospices and in other prior settings. METHOD: Qualitative comments were extracted from the CaregiverVoice survey completed by bereaved caregivers of decedents who had died in 16 residential hospices in Ontario, Canada. On this survey, caregivers reported what was good and bad about the services provided during the last three months of life as separate open-text questions. A constant-comparison method was employed to derive themes from the responses. RESULTS: A total of 550 caregivers completed the survey, 94% (517) of whom commented on either something good (84%) and/or bad (49%) about the care experience. In addition to residential hospice, the majority of patients represented also received palliative care in the home (69%) or hospital (59%). Overall, most positive statements were about care in hospice (71%), whereas the negative statements tended to refer to other settings (81%). The hospice experience was found to exemplify care that was compassionate and holistic, in a comforting environment, offered by providers who were personable, dedicated, and informative. These humanistic qualities of care and the extent of support were generally seen to be lacking from the other settings. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our examination of the good and bad aspects of palliative care received is unique in qualitatively exploring palliative care experiences across multiple settings, and specifically that in hospices. Investigation of these perspectives affirmed the elements of care that dying patients and their family caregivers most value and that the hospices were largely effective at addressing. These findings highlight the need for reinforcing these qualities in other end-of-life settings to create comforting and supportive environments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".