Paediatric palliative care in practice: Perspectives between acute and long‐term healthcare teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore and compare acute and long-term care professionals' perspectives about paediatric palliative care. METHODS: Focus group interviews were conducted in 2016-2017 with professionals from acute (Emergency Department, Intensive Care Unit) and long-term care (Complex Care Service, Palliative Care) teams. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants were enrolled. Palliative care definitions were similar throughout groups: to provide active care early in the illness, focusing on the child as a whole and supporting families. Each group perceived a different role in the patient's illness trajectory, reflecting their own culture of care. They demonstrated important differences in their approach to palliative care. Disagreements regarding when or how to discuss goals of care were expressed. Acute care professionals reported discomfort when having to introduce these discussions for the first time, while long-term care professionals perceived negative judgements about their patients' quality of life by acute care teams during health events. Personalised care, communication with families and continuity of care were thought to be key elements to improve care. CONCLUSION: Paediatric palliative care is well recognised throughout specialties, yet continuity of care is challenged by groups' roles and interventions in a patient's illness. A reflective and mutual clinical approach is needed to improve quality of care and professionals' satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".