Breaking Down Silos: Consensus-Based Recommendations for Improved Content, Structure, and Accessibility of Advance Directives in Emergency and Out-of-Hospital Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients receiving palliative care often interact with a variety of health care providers across various settings. While patients may experience good care from these services, the connection between these can be disjointed as care providers may work siloed from each other. This is particularly true in out-of-hospital and hospital emergency settings, where providers have no prior knowledge of the patient, particularly their advanced directives (ADs) and goals of care. In the Emergency Department or when paramedics respond to the home, ADs are further challenged by issues of clarity of content, contextual relevance, and accessibility. Objectives: (1) What content should be in AD for medical emergencies, and (2) what would ensure the AD is accessible in times of crisis? Design: Phase 1 involved a review of existing AD and published literature to generate a list of candidate elements. Phase 2 presented these in an online survey using modified Delphi method to paramedics, emergency nurses, and physicians. During phase 3, a focus group with palliative and emergency care providers and information technology experts was held regarding current accessibility of AD and a vision for improvement. The detailed focus group notes were coded using inductive analysis. Results: Fifty-five candidate elements were provided for the Delphi. After three rounds, 36 panelists achieved consensus on 46 elements. Participation was greater than 80% in all rounds. From the focus group on access, six themes emerged; (1) imprecise language, (2) mismatch of protocols, (3) lack of understanding by patients/families, (4) lack of AD, (5) difficulty accessing AD, and (6) opportunities: database, education. Conclusion: This project makes recommendations to improve palliative care in emergency or crisis situations and facilitate care consistent with patient's goals: (1) a consensus-based template for AD content; and (2) development of a centralized database. These findings served as the foundation for the “Paramedics Providing Palliative Care at Home” program.
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 | 0.539 | 0.571 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".