What Are Staff Perceptions About Their Current Use of Emergency Departments for Long-Term Care Residents at End of Life?
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
The goal of this study was to examine current rates of resident deaths, Emergency Department (ED) use within the last year of life, and hospital deaths for long-term care (LTC) residents. Using a mixed-methods approach, we compared these rates across four LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, and explored potential explanations of variations across homes to stimulate staff reflections and improve performance based on a quality improvement approach. Chart audits revealed that 59% of residents across sites visited EDs during the last month of life and 26% of resident deaths occurred in hospital. Staff expressed surprise at the amount of hospital use during end of life (EOL). Reflections suggested that clinical expertise, comfort with EOL communication, clinical resources (i.e., equipment), and family availability for EOL decision making could all affect nondesirable hospital transfers at EOL. Staff appeared motivated to address these areas of practice following this reflective process.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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