ED-PALS: A Comprehensive Palliative Care Service for Oncology Patients in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American College of Emergency Physicians has identified early palliative care referral for patients with advanced cancer as a key competent of the Choosing Wisely campaign. OBJECTIVES: To study the feasibility of a new 3-way model of care between emergency department (ED), hospital palliative care department, and inpatient/home hospice. METHODS: This was a prospective, descriptive study that included oncology patients who attended the hospital ED over a 3-year period from January 2015 to December 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) presence of metastatic cancer with either; (2) any 1 of the following symptoms: pain, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting, delirium, or swelling; or (3) potential care difficulties (requiring home hospice care or inpatient hospice). RESULTS: A total of 340 patients were referred from the ED. Mean age was 72 years, 59% were males and 41% females, and the majority (88%) were Chinese. The most common cancers were lung 89 (26%), colorectal 71 (21%), and hepatobiliary cancer 49 (14%). The most common symptoms on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale scoring were pain (34%), poor appetite (31%), and dyspnea (26%). CONCLUSIONS: This tripartite model of palliative care, hospice, and ED collaboration allows earlier access to palliative care in the ED and direct admissions to the palliative care unit and comfort care rooms. The ED patients who did not need admission were also attended to in the palliative care "Hot Clinics" within a week with home hospice help. Patients who required inpatient hospice care were directly admitted there from the ED.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".