MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3067829561 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa068.022

23 Current Trends in Canada in Neonatal Palliative Care

2020· article· en· W3067829561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gillian MacLean, Alessia Gallipoli, Ayla Raabis

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineIntensive careFamily medicineNursingPediatricsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The area of palliative care in pediatrics has been expanding, as evidence emphasizes the benefits of providing pediatric patients and their families with optimized care in cases of chronic illness and end-of-life. The majority of pediatric deaths occur in infants under one year, with significant portions of these deaths taking place in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). The expansion of palliative care into neonatal medicine is of significant importance, as symptom management and end-of-life care plays a vital role in providing complete care to these infants. Guidelines that have been put into place can vary significantly between centers. Published studies in neonatal palliative care (PC) describe these challenges, however little data currently exists specific to Canadian NICUs. Objectives The primary objective was to gather information about current practice trends and themes around barriers in neonatal PC. Design/Methods An anonymous survey was distributed to Canadian Level 3 NICU staff, including neonatologists, neonatal nurse practitioners (NP), and neonatal fellows through the Qualtrics platform. Surveys were distributed through email and responses tracked in the Qualtrics system. Results The survey response rate was 57. The majority of respondents were neonatologists (50%), with many having more than 5 years of experience. Provision of palliative care was common with 20/57 respondents being involved in 5 or more cases in the past year. Only 40% of respondents reported that neonatologists and neonatal NPs received palliative care training at their center. When education did exist, lectures (31%) and workshops (26%) were most common. 97% said their centre would benefit from more education. 53% of respondents said their center had an established guideline around neonatal PC, 20% did not know and 27% answered no. Only 8% of respondents who work at centres with a guideline found that it was consistently followed. Respondents were asked to identify barriers to implementation at their place of practice. Common responses noted challenges in NICU collaborations with maternal-fetal medicine and palliative care teams, as well as lack of education and providers’ personal beliefs. Lastly, respondents provided details of their guidelines or common practices in PC which has been collated and summarized. Conclusion The results provide a snapshot of the current palliative care practices in academic NICUs across Canada. Overall the results were positive with many centers having a guideline and some provider education. The perceived barriers highlight focus areas for future education and policy development, and emphasize the importance of improved collaboration moving forward.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→