MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137722500 · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001524

Association Between Attending Physicians’ Rates of Referral to Palliative Care and Location of Death in Hospitalized Adults With Serious Illness

2021· article· en· W3137722500 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kieran L. Quinn, Thérèse A. Stukel, Anjie Huang, Russell Goldman, Peter Cram, Allan S. Detsky, Chaim M. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careInterquartile rangeOdds ratioEmergency medicineConfidence intervalPopulationMortality rateFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive palliative care are less likely to die in hospital. OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between physician rates of referral to palliative care and location of death in hospitalized adults with serious illness. RESEARCH DESIGN: Population-based decedent cohort study using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: A total of 7866 physicians paired with 130,862 hospitalized adults in their last year of life who died of serious illness between 2010 and 2016. EXPOSURE: Physician annual rate of referral to palliative care (high, average, low). MEASURES: Odds of death in hospital versus home, adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: There was nearly 4-fold variation in the proportion of patients receiving palliative care during follow-up based on attending physician referral rates: high 42.4% (n=24,433), average 24.7% (n=10,772), low 10.7% (n=6721). Referral to palliative care was also associated with being referred by palliative care specialists and in urban teaching hospitals. The proportion of patients who died in hospital according to physician referral rate were 47.7% (high), 50.1% (average), and 52.8% (low). Hospitalized patients cared for by a physician who referred to palliative care at a high rate had lower risk of dying in hospital than at home compared with patients who were referred by a physician with an average rate of referral [adjusted odds ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.95; number needed to treat=57 (interquartile range 41-92)] and by a physician with a low rate of referral [adjusted odds ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.84; number needed to treat =28 patients (interquartile range 23-44)]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An attending physicians' rates of referral to palliative care is associated with a lower risk of dying in hospital. Therefore, patients who are cared for by physicians with higher rates of referral to palliative care are less likely to die in hospital and more likely to die at home. Standardizing referral to palliative care may help reduce physician-level variation as a barrier to access.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207