MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085290009 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200022

Evaluation of a program using a physician assistant and an electronic patient–provider communication tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care in older adults in hospital: a pilot study

2020· article· en· W3085290009 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Monica Monchis, Chris Martin, Giulio DiDiodato

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
FundersVictoria General Hospital Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Advance care planningConfidence intervalEmergency medicineFamily medicinePalliative careNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many patients receive unwanted, low-value, high-intensity care at the end of life because of poor communication with health care providers. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of using a physician assistant and an electronic tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care. METHOD: We conducted a pilot study for the intervention (physician assistant-led discussion using an electronic tool) from Apr. 1 to Aug. 31, 2019. Patients aged 79 years or older admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital (Barrie, Ontario) with either (i) no documented resuscitation preferences or (ii) a request for life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness were eligible for the intervention. The goal of this study was to complete more than 30 interventions. The primary outcomes included the proportion of consenting eligible patients, the time required and the proportion of patients changing their resuscitation preferences. RESULTS: A total of 763 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 337 eligible for the intervention. Of these, 49 cases were contacted for consent, and 37 interventions were completed (75.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1%-86.6%). On average, the intervention required 50 minutes (standard deviation 21) to complete. Overall, 31 interventions resulted in a change in resuscitation preferences (83.7%, 95% CI 68.0%-93.8%), with 22 patients choosing to forgo any access to life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness (59.4%, 95% CI 42.1%-75.2%). INTERPRETATION: In this pilot study, the intervention was completed in a minority of eligible patients and required substantial time; however, it led to many changes in resuscitation preferences. Before designing a study to evaluate its impact, the intervention needs to be revised to make it more efficient to administer.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207