Palliative care for patients with communication and cognitive difficulties.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To help increase the confidence of both caregivers and clinicians in providing palliative care to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) using an easy-to-follow framework to improve and overcome barriers to effective palliative care in this population. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A literature review was conducted to explore recent best evidence to address these palliative care needs and to allow for a focused opportunity to consider the details of implementing clinical practice guidelines in the palliative care context. Evidence ranges from level I to level III. MAIN MESSAGE: Pain and psychological and emotional distress are important issues for individuals with IDD, as they can be difficult to assess and measure, and often present atypically, especially in those with limited communication skills. Further, little is known about end-of-life needs in the adult population with IDD, especially for those living in community residences. The conducted literature review of patient, caregiver, and clinician experiences exposed considerable barriers, including incorrect assumptions about patients' capacity to understand and discomfort of both caregivers and clinicians with open communication. This has resulted in exclusion of adults with IDD from their own care, which has proven harmful. Maximizing time in familiar surroundings and establishing trust and continuity are crucial. Sometimes trial and error with empiric use of comfort medications is necessary, but this can be mitigated with careful examination of distress patterns and judicious use of diagnostic testing. It is always best to integrate the palliative approach into the existing pattern of care. CONCLUSION: The validated tools and recommendations provided will assist with communication, symptom interpretation, treatment decisions, advanced care planning, addressing grief, and important considerations in end-of-life 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 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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".