An Assessment of the Management of Patients with Advanced End-Stage Illness in the Emergency Department: An Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Presentations to the emergency department (ED) by patients with end-of-life (EOL) conditions for their acute care needs are common. Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify and describe the ED management across presentations to the ED for EOL conditions. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Settings/Subjects: Emergency physicians in two Canadian ED's were asked to identify presentations by adult patients with EOL conditions using a modified screening tool. Measurements: Patient characteristics and ED management for each presentation were collected through chart review by trained research assistants. Descriptive analyses were conducted as appropriate and bivariate comparisons of dichotomous and continuous variables were completed using χ 2 tests and using t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test, respectively. Results: Physicians identified 663 ED presentations for EOL conditions, with advanced cancer (41%), dementia (23%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16%) being the most common EOL conditions. The majority of presentations involved consultations (77%), hospitalization (65%), and numerous investigations (97%), including blood work (97%) and imaging (92%). The majority of patients with EOL conditions had a history of ED visits (68%). Using a modified screening tool, 78% of presentations involved patients with unmet palliative care needs, but only 1% of presentations involved a palliative consultation or admission to a palliative care unit. Conclusion: Presentations to the ED for EOL conditions involve significant ED resources; however, only a handful of patients are referred to palliative services. Patients with EOL conditions are appropriate targets for palliative services and community support outside the ED.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".