Providing Data-Driven Equitable Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Structurally Vulnerable Populations: A Pilot Survey of Information Management Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considerable gains are being made in data-driven efforts to advance quality improvement in health care. However, organizations providing hospice-oriented palliative care for structurally vulnerable persons with terminal illnesses may not have the enabling data infrastructure or framework to derive such benefits. METHODS: We conducted a pilot cross-sectional qualitative study involving a convenience sample of hospice organizations across North America providing palliative care services for structurally vulnerable patients. Through semistructured interviews, we surveyed organizations on the types of data collected, the information systems used, and the challenges they faced. RESULTS: We contacted 13 organizations across North America and interviewed 9. All organizations served structurally vulnerable populations, including the homeless and vulnerably housed, socially isolated, and HIV-positive patients. Common examples of collected data included the number of referrals, the number of admissions, length of stay, and diagnosis. More than half of the organizations (n = 5) used an electronic medical record, although none of the record systems were specifically designed for palliative care. All (n = 9) the organizations used the built-in reporting capacity of their information management systems and more than half (n = 6) augmented this capacity with chart reviews. DISCUSSION: A number of themes emerged from our discussions. Present data collection is heterogeneous, and storage of these data is highly fragmented within and across organizations. Funding appeared to be a key enabler of more robust data collection and use. Future work should address these gaps and examine opportunities for innovative ways of analysis and reporting to improve care for structurally vulnerable populations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".