Delivery of Palliative Care in Acute Care Hospitals: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study Describing the Level of Involvement and Timing of Inpatient Palliative Care in the Last Year of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Much end-of-life care is provided in hospital, yet little is known about the delivery of palliative care during end-of-life hospitalizations. Objectives: To characterize the level of palliative care involvement across hospitalizations in the last year of life. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study of adults in Ontario, Canada, who died between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017, and had at least one acute care hospitalization in their last year of life. Using linked administrative health data, we developed a hierarchy of inpatient palliative care involvement reflecting the degree to which care was delivered with palliative intent. This hierarchy was based on palliative care diagnosis and service provider codes on hospitalization records and physician claims. We examined variations in the level of palliative care involvement across key patient characteristics. Results: In the last year of life, 65.1% of hospitalizations had no indication of palliative care involvement, 16.7% had a low level of involvement, 13.5% had a medium level of involvement, and 4.7% had a high level of involvement. Most hospitalizations with palliative care involvement (85.6%) occurred in the two months before death. Compared to patients who received no inpatient palliative care, patients who received a high level of palliative care involvement tended to be younger, died of cancer, resided in urban or lower income neighborhoods, and had fewer chronic conditions. Discussion: While many hospitalizations occurred in the last year of life, the majority did not involve palliative care, and very few had a high level of palliative care involvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".