Palliative care as an emerging role for respiratory health professionals: Findings from a cross-sectional, exploratory Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ) examine barriers to discussions with patients about palliative care. METHODS: An online survey addressing the aims of this study was developed and pilot tested. The survey was distributed nationally using the database of the Lung Association's RESPTREC respiratory educator training program. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 123 completed surveys were returned, with respiratory therapists comprising the largest group of respondents. The majority indicated that end-of-life care was less than optimal for patients with advanced respiratory illnesses and agreed that palliative care should be a role of RHPs. Patient- and family-related barriers to having end-of-life discussions included: difficulty accepting prognosis, limitations and complications, and lack of capacity. For providers, the most important barriers were: lack of training, uncertainty about prognosis, and lack of time. The health care system barriers of concern were increasing demand for palliative care services and limited accessibility of palliative care for those with advanced respiratory diseases and difficulties in accurate prognostication for these conditions. DISCUSSION: Incorporating a more defined role in palliative care was generally seen as a desirable evolution of the RHP role. A number of strategies to mitigate identified barriers to discussions with the patient are described. Better alignment of the services required with the needs of patients with advanced respiratory disease can be addressed in a number of ways. CONCLUSIONS: As RHP roles continue to evolve, consideration should be given to the ways in which RHPs can contribute to improving the quality of care for patients with advanced respiratory disease. Building collaborations with RHPs, palliative care, and other existing health programs can ensure high quality of care. Creating and taking advantage of learning opportunities to build skills and comfort in using a palliative approach will benefit respiratory patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".