Association Between Palliative Care and Death at Home in Adults With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Palliative care is associated with improved symptom control and quality of life in people with heart failure. There is conflicting evidence as to whether it is associated with a greater likelihood of death at home in this population. The objective of this study was to describe the delivery of newly initiated palliative care services in adults who die with heart failure and measure the association between receipt of palliative care and death at home compared with those who did not receive palliative care. Methods and Results We performed a population‐based cohort study using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada of 74 986 community‐dwelling adults with heart failure who died between 2010 and 2015. Seventy‐five percent of community‐dwelling adults with heart failure died in a hospital. Patients who received any palliative care were twice as likely to die at home compared with those who did not receive it (adjusted odds ratio 2.12 [95% CI , 2.03–2.20]; P <0.01). Delivery of home‐based palliative care had a higher association with death at home (adjusted odds ratio 11.88 [95% CI , 9.34–15.11]; P <0.01), as did delivery during transitions of care between inpatient and outpatient care settings (adjusted odds ratio 8.12 [95% CI , 6.41–10.27]; P <0.01). Palliative care was most commonly initiated late in the course of a person's disease (≤30 days before death, 45.2% of subjects) and led by nonspecialist palliative care physicians 61% of the time. Conclusions Most adults with heart failure die in a hospital. Providing palliative care near the end‐of‐life was associated with an increased likelihood of dying at home. These findings suggest that scaling existing palliative care programs to increase access may improve end‐of‐life care in people dying with chronic noncancer illness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".