MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047986540 · doi:10.1681/asn.2020040473

Thematic Analysis of Hospice Mentions in the Health Records of Veterans with Advanced Kidney Disease

2020· article· en· W3047986540 on OpenAlexaff
Ann M. O’Hare, Catherine R. Butler, Janelle S. Taylor, Susan Wong, Elizabeth K. Vig, Ryan S. Laundry, Melissa W. Wachterman, Paul L. Hebert, Chuan‐Fen Liu, Nilka Ríos-Burrows, Claire A. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionOffice of Research and DevelopmentHealth Services Research and DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingVA Puget Sound Health Care System
KeywordsMedicineThematic analysisVeterans AffairsFamily medicineReferralDocumentationDiseaseMedical recordPopulationKidney diseaseQualitative researchPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Statement Little is known regarding how decisions about hospice referral among patients with advanced kidney disease unfold in real-world clinical settings. The authors identified three dominant themes in their qualitative analysis of documentation pertaining to hospice in the electronic medical records of members of a national sample of veterans with advanced kidney disease. First, hospice and usual care seemed to function as conflicting rather than complementary models of care. Second, patients were usually referred to hospice late in the course of illness after all other options had been exhausted. Third, patients’ complex care needs sometimes complicated transitions to hospice, stretched the limits of home hospice, and fostered reliance on the acute medical system. These findings highlight the need to improve hospice transitions for patients with advanced kidney disease. Background Patients with advanced kidney disease are less likely than many patients with other types of serious illness to enroll in hospice. Little is known about real-world clinical decision-making related to hospice for members of this population. Methods We used a text search tool to conduct a thematic analysis of documentation pertaining to hospice in the electronic medical record system of the Department of Veterans Affairs, for a national sample of 1000 patients with advanced kidney disease between 2004 and 2014 who were followed until October 8, 2019. Results Three dominant themes emerged from our qualitative analysis of the electronic medical records of 340 cohort members with notes containing hospice mentions: ( 1 ) hospice and usual care as antithetical care models: clinicians appeared to perceive a sharp demarcation between services that could be provided under hospice versus usual care and were often uncertain about hospice eligibility criteria. This could shape decision-making about hospice and dialysis and made it hard to individualize care; ( 2 ) hospice as a last resort: patients often were referred to hospice late in the course of illness and did not so much choose hospice as accept these services after all treatment options had been exhausted; and ( 3 ) care complexity: patients’ complex care needs at the time of hospice referral could complicate transitions to hospice, stretch the limits of home hospice, and promote continued reliance on the acute care system. Conclusions Our findings underscore the need to improve transitions to hospice for patients with advanced kidney disease as they approach the end of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207