Advance care planning (ACP) for specialists managing cirrhosis: A focus on patient‐centered care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care designation (GCD) are being integrated into modern health care. In cirrhosis, uptake and adoption of these practices have been limited with physicians citing many perceived barriers and limitations. Recognizing the many tangible benefits of ACP and GCD processes in patients with life-limiting chronic diseases, the onus is on health practitioners to initiate and direct these conversations with their patients and surrogates. Drawing upon the literature and our experiences in palliative care and cirrhosis, we provide an actionable framework that can be readily implemented into a busy clinical setting by a practitioner. Conversation starters, visual aids, educational resources (for patients and practitioners), and videos of mock physician-patient scenarios are presented and discussed. Importantly, we have customized each of these tools to meet the unique health care needs of patients with cirrhosis. The inherent flexibility of our approach to ACP discussions and GCD can be further modified to accommodate practitioner preferences. CONCLUSION: In our clinics, this assemblage of "best practice tools" has been well received by patients and surrogates enabling us to increase the number of outpatients with cirrhosis who have actively contributed to their GCD before acute health events and are supported by well-informed surrogates. (Hepatology 2018;67:2025-2040).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".