MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800859138 · doi:10.1097/nhh.0000000000000526

Innovative Urgent Care for the Palliative Patient at Home

2017· article· en· W2800859138 on OpenAlexaff
Carmel Montgomery, Charlotte Pooler, Julia E. Arsenault, Colleen Berean, Robert S. Sharman, Cheryl Cameron, Ingrid de Kock

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Healthcare Now · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careGeneral partnershipMedicineNursingEmergency departmentMedical emergencyEnd-of-life careBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palliative and end-of-life patients in their homes are at risk of developing symptom crises requiring urgent care. The usual care for these patients involves transport to an Emergency Department (ED) despite the preference of most palliative patients to stay home. The objective of this initiative was to develop an innovative strategy to provide collaborative care in the home to alleviate symptoms and avoid transport. A partnership was created among Emergency Medical Services and Community Care staff, physicians, and leaders to enable patients to stay at home with existing resources during symptom crisis. As a result of the initiative, patients were able to stay at home more frequently. When patients required transport to the ED, it occurred after attempted symptom management in the home. A total of 110 calls were tracked in the first 18 months of the initiative. Of those, 61% ended with the patient staying home, in alignment with their preferred place of care at the end of life. A collaborative approach by care providers in the community enabled patients to stay home despite symptom crisis near the end of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Healthcare NowSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207