Physician-Assisted Death Psychiatric Assessment: A Standardized Protocol to Conform to the California End of Life Option Act
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: The California End of Life Option Act (EOLOA), which legalized physician-assisted death (PAD), became effective in 2016. The EOLOA does not require a mental health consultation in all cases nor does it state the standards for the mental health assessment. University of California, San Francisco Medical Center (UCSFMC) policy makers decided to require a mental health assessment of all patients seeking PAD under the EOLOA. OBJECTIVES: The Department of Psychiatry was tasked with developing a standard protocol for the mental health assessment of patients seeking PAD. METHODS: Members of the consultation-liaison (C-L) service developed a document to guide members in completing the mental health evaluations for patients requesting PAD. RESULTS: A committee at UCSFMC developed a clinical protocol informed by the law with an additional local expectation of an evaluation by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. The C-L psychiatry group at UCSF developed a standard protocol for the psychiatric assessment for use by clinicians performing these assessments. Attention to the cognitive, mood, and decisional capacity status pertinent to choosing PAD is required under the clinical guidance document. Case vignettes of 6 patients evaluated for PAD are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The local adoption of the California EOLOA by UCSFMC requires a mental health assessment of all patients requesting EOL services at UCSF. The clinical guideline for these assessments was locally developed, informed by the literature on EOL in other jurisdictions where it has already been available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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