Heart failure and palliative care in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Heart failure is a common ED presentation that is underserved by palliative care services and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We sought to evaluate use of palliative care services in patients with heart failure presenting to the ED. The primary outcome studied was palliative care involvement. Secondary outcomes of the study were: (1) 1-year mortality, (2) ED visits, (3) hospital admissions and (4) heart failure clinic involvement. METHODS: We conducted a health records review of 500 patients with heart failure who presented to two Canadian academic hospital EDs from January to August 2013. RESULTS: Patients were of mean age 80.7 years, women (53.2%) and had significant comorbidities. Only 41% of all deceased patients at 1 year had any palliative care involvement. Of those with palliative care, 44 (76%) patients had less than 2 weeks of palliative care involvement prior to death. Compared with those with no palliative care, the 79 (15.8%) patients with palliative care involvement had a higher 1-year mortality rate (70.9% vs 18.8%) and more hospital admissions/year (1.4 vs 0.85) for heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: We found that few patients with heart failure had palliative care services. Additionally, the majority of those who have palliative care involvement do not meet current recommendations for early palliative care involvement in heart failure. This study suggests that the ED may be an appropriate setting to identify and refer high-risk patients with heart failure who could benefit from earlier palliative care involvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".