Inpatient Palliative Care Consult: A Marker for High Risk of Readmission or Death in Discharged Oncology Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits or readmission to hospital are common particularly among those with advanced illness. Little prospective data exist on early outcomes specifically for patients seen by a palliative care consult service during their acute care admission, who are subsequently discharged home. METHODS: This study followed 62 oncology patients who had had a palliative care consult during their admission to acute care with weekly phone calls postdischarge for 4 weeks. Events recorded included death, readmission, emergency department visits, and admission to a palliative care unit. RESULTS: By the end of the study, 32 (52%) of 62 had had at least 1 event, (readmission, emergency department visit, or death), with the majority of these occurring in the first 2 weeks postdischarge. The overall 4-week death rate was 14 (22.6%) of 62. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the need for a palliative care consult identifies inpatients at very high risk for early deterioration and underlines the critical importance of advance care planning/goals-of-care discussions by the oncology and palliative care teams to ensure patients and families understand their disease process and have the opportunity to direct their care decisions.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".