Quasi-experimental evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve quality of end-of-life care and quality of dying for patients with advanced dementia in long-term care institutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvement in the quality of end-of-life care for advanced dementia is increasingly recognized as a priority in palliative care. AIM: To evaluate the impact of a multidimensional intervention to improve quality of care and quality of dying in advanced dementia in long-term care facilities. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study with the intervention taking place in two long-term care facilities versus usual care in two others over a 1-year period. The intervention had five components: (1) training program to physicians and nursing staff, (2) clinical monitoring of pain using an observational pain scale, (3) implementation of a regular mouth care routine, (4) early and systematic communication with families about end-of-life care issues with provision of an information booklet, and (5) involvement of a nurse facilitator to implement and monitor the intervention. Quality of care was assessed with the Family Perception of Care Scale. The Symptom Management for End-of-Life Care in Dementia and the Comfort Assessment in Dying scales were used to assess the quality of dying. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 193 residents with advanced dementia and their close family members were included (97 in the intervention group and 96 in the usual care group). RESULTS: The Family Perception of Care score was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (157.3 vs 149.1; p = 0.04). The Comfort Assessment and Symptom Management scores were also significantly higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Our multidimensional intervention in long-term care facilities for patients with terminal dementia resulted in improved quality of care and quality of dying when compared to usual care.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it