Feasibility and Acceptability of a Palliative Approach Screening Tool in the Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying critically ill patients who have unmet needs for palliative care is the first step in integrating the palliative approach for patients and their families into intensive care units. OBJECTIVE: To explore how palliative care is addressed in an intensive care unit and to develop and test a screening tool for unmet needs that may be met through the palliative approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital to explore the palliative approach. Focus groups and a survey were used to identify items for the screening tool. After pilot testing of the tool, interviews were conducted to refine the content. RESULTS: The first focus group (14 participants) revealed participants' frustration with unclear communication and a desire for better collaboration among health care team members regarding patients with serious life-limiting illnesses and their families. The survey (response rate: 20%; 30 of 150) showed clinicians' preference for items that identify specific needs rather than diagnoses. The second focus group (8 participants) yielded strategies to operationalize the tool for all patients in the intensive care unit. After 2 separate pilot testing cycles, bedside nurses noted that use of the screening tool prompted earlier discussions and broader assessments of what is meaningful to patients and their families. CONCLUSION: Development of a screening tool for unmet palliative care needs among intensive care unit patients is feasible and acceptable and may help to systematically integrate the palliative approach into routine care for critically ill 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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".