What Do We Know About Pediatric Palliative Care Patients Consulting to the Pediatric Emergency Department?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of pediatric palliative care (PPC) patients presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) and these patients' ED visits. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was conducted from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2012, in a tertiary care pediatric university-affiliated hospital. Eligible patients had initial PPC consultations during the study period; all ED visits by these patients were included. Data were drawn from the ED's electronic data system and patient's medical chart. RESULTS: A total of 290 new patients were followed by the PPC team, and 94 (32.4%) consulted the ED. Pediatric palliative care patients who consulted the ED had a median age of 7 years and baseline diagnoses of cancer (39.4%) or encephalopathy (27.7%). No patients died in the ED, but 36 (38.3%) died in hospital after an ED visit and 18 (19.1%) within 72 hours of admission. Pediatric palliative care patients consulted 219 times, with a median number of visits per patient of 2 (range, 1-8). They presented acutely ill as per triage scales. Reasons for consultation included respiratory distress/dyspnea (30.6%), pain (12.8%), seizure (11.4%), and fever (9.1%). Patients were often admitted to wards (61.2%) and the pediatric intensive care unit (7.3%). Two thirds (65.7%) of patients had signed an advanced care directive at the time of their visit. Discussions about goals of care occurred in 37.4% of visits. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric palliative care patients present to the ED acutely ill, often at their end of life, and goals of care are not always discussed. This is a first step toward understanding how to improve PPC patients' ED care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".