Patient Dignity Question: Feasible, dignity-conserving intervention in a rural hospice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of using the Patient Dignity Question (PDQ) in a small rural hospice setting. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: The 5-bed Algonquin Grace Hospice in Huntsville, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen patients who met the research criteria and who were admitted to the hospice from September 2015 to December 2016. METHODS: Participants completed the Patient Dignity Inventory and modified versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale before and after the PDQ interviews. MAIN FINDINGS: While each of the 19 PDQ interviews was unique, there were many consistencies regarding accomplishments (eg, being a good parent), hopes (eg, one's need of being respected), and fears (eg, concerns about pets) that emerged from participants' stories. Hospice staff found the documents from PDQ interviews to be very valuable in their understanding of patients. Staff and patients unanimously wanted the program to continue. An unexpected benefit was the response of the patients' families who were deeply moved by the legacy documents, often sharing them following their family member's death. CONCLUSION: The PDQ is a dignity-conserving intervention that serves as a meaningful end-of-life legacy document that benefits patients, staff, and families. Using the PDQ at the hospice helped patients feel truly heard, and increased caregivers' compassion and understanding of patients' needs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".