16 Delirium care of hospice patients: a qualitative interview study with staff and volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Delirium is a distressing condition which is commonly experienced by hospice patients. Although delirium can be prevented by around one-third in hospital inpatients (Siddiqiet al.2016) there has been little research into effective strategies to prevent and manage delirium in hospices. Greater insight into the current practice attitudes and understanding of hospice staff and volunteers would inform the development of interventions that are tailored to improve delirium care in hospices. Aim To explore the understanding attitudes and practice of hospice staff and volunteers regarding the care of patients with delirium. Methods 36 qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted at two hospices. Participants were purposively sampled to include different disciplines (9 health care assistants, 8 nurses, 5 doctors, 4 volunteers, 3 board members, 2 allied health professionals, 2 managers, 2 domestic workers and 2 fundraisers). A topic guide and case vignettes prompted participants to describe their experiences in relation to delirium prevention recognition assessment and management. Three researchers are conducting thematic analysis to identify analyse and interpret themes from the interview data. Results Provisional results include themes of: ‘Supporting the distressing experience of delirium’; ‘Management strategies’ and ‘The burden of delirium care.’ Gaps in current practice relate to delirium prevention recognition and screening. Potential facilitators for developing interventions in hospices include education flexibility in staffing the role of volunteers and a supportive staff culture. Conclusion This study will provide important insights into staff and volunteers’ current practice which will inform the development of a targeted intervention to improve delirium care in hospices. Reference . Siddiqi N, Harrison J, Clegg A, Teale E, Young J, Taylor J, Simpkins S. Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2016;(3). Art. No.: CD005563. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005563.pub3
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 | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".