Assessing caregiver satisfaction with care on an acute palliative care unit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
51 Background: Accreditation Canada has adopted four main values for hospice, palliative, and end-of-life services: dignity and respect; information sharing; partnership and participation; and collaboration . These domains, as well as communication and joint decision-making, are important for satisfaction of caregivers for patients with cancer, and can be measured using the FAMCARE questionnaire. We aimed to assess satisfaction of caregivers for patient admitted to an acute palliative care unit at a comprehensive cancer center in Toronto, Canada. Methods: The FAMCARE questionnaire was administered by a trained volunteer to self-identified caregivers of patients who were admitted for more than five days on the acute palliative care unit. A short, anonymous demographic survey accompanied the FAMCARE questionnaire to gather information on relationship to patient, ethnicity, patient length of stay, and location of residence. The survey package either was completed in the presence of the volunteer, or was left to be completed by the caregiver alone and collected later by the volunteer. Results were reviewed regularly at the quality committee of the palliative care service. Results: From September 2014 to March 2017, 90 caregivers completed the questionnaire. Most caregivers were female (69%), identified as Canadian or Caucasian (57%), and lived in Toronto (63%). In all, 57% were spouses while 31% were children of the patient. Most patients had been admitted between a week and a month (67%). Care was rated as “Satisfied” or “Very satisfied” most of the time on all items (range 81-100%). The availability of nurses and doctors (100% satisfied/very satisfied) and the way tests and treatments were followed-up (99%) were rated highest. Information given about side effects (81%) and referral to specialists (83%) were rated lowest. Conclusions: Despite the nature of the acute palliative care unit, where patients admitted tend to be very ill with complex symptoms and psychosocial issues, caregiver satisfaction was high. Future research will examine whether caregivers of different ethnicities value different aspects of cancer 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".