The Comfort Measures Order Set at a Tertiary Care Academic Hospital: Is There a Comparable Difference in End-of-Life Care Between Patients Dying in Acute Care When CMOS Is Utilized?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardized protocols have been previously shown to be helpful in managing end-of-life (EOL) care in hospital. The comfort measures order set (CMOS), a standardized framework for assessing imminently dying patients' symptoms and needs, was implemented at a tertiary academic hospital. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether there were comparable differences in the care of a dying patient when the CMOS was utilized and when it was not. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed on patients admitted under oncology and general internal medicine, who were referred to the inpatient palliative care team for "EOL care" between February 2015 and March 2016. RESULTS: Of 83 patients, 56 (67%) received intiation of the CMOS and 27 (33%) did not for EOL care. There was significant involvement of spiritual care with the CMOS (66%), as compared to the group without CMOS (19%), P < .05. The use of CMOS resulted in 1.7 adjustments to symptom management per patient by palliative care, which was significantly less than the number of symptom management adjustments per patient when CMOS was not used (3.3), P < .05. However, initiating CMOS did not result in a signficant difference in patient distress around the time of death ( P = .11). Dyspnea was the most frequently identified symptom causing distress in actively dying patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CMOS is helpful in providing a foundation to a comfort approach in imminently dying patients. However, more education on its utility as a framework for EOL care and assessment across the organization is still required.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".