MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984277999 · doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0480-z

Hospice use and one-year survivorship of residents in long-term care facilities in Canada: a cohort study

2019· article· en· W2984277999 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Beibei Xiong, Shannon Freeman, Davina Banner, Lina Spirgienė

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSurvivorship curveLong-term carePain medicineMedicineGerontologyFamily medicineCohortPalliative careCohort studyNursingEnvironmental healthPsychiatryAnesthesiologyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospice care is designed for persons in the final phase of a terminal illness. However, hospice care is not used appropriately. Some persons who do not meet the hospice eligibility receive hospice care, while many persons who may have benefitted from hospice care do not receive it. This study aimed to examine the characteristics of, and one-year survivorship among, residents who received hospice care versus those who did not in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Canada. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked health administrative data from the Canadian Continuing Reporting System (CCRS) and the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD). All persons who resided in a LTCF and who had a Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0) assessment in the CCRS database between Jan. 1st, 2015 and Dec 31st, 2015 were included in this study (N = 185,715). Death records were linked up to Dec 31th, 2016. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: The reported hospice care rate in LTCFs is critically low (less than 3%), despite one in five residents dying within 3 months of the assessment. Residents who received hospice care and died within 1 year were found to have more severe and complex health conditions than other residents. Compared to those who did not receive hospice care but died within 1 year, residents who received hospice care and were alive 1 year following the assessment were younger (a mean age of 79.4 [+ 13.5] years vs. 86.5 [+ 9.2] years), more likely to live in an urban LTCF (93.2% vs. 82.6%), had a higher percentage of having a diagnosis of cancer (50.7% vs. 12.9%), had a lower percentage of having a diagnosis of dementia (30.2% vs. 54.5%), and exhibited more severe acute clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The actual use of hospice care among LTCF residents is very poor in Canada. Several factors emerged as potential barriers to hospice use in the LTCF population including ageism, rurality, and a diagnosis of dementia. Improved understanding of hospice use and one-year survivorship may help LTCFs administrators, hospice care providers, and policy makers to improve hospice accessibility in this target group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207