MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206788159 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000549

End-of-Life Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: The 3 Wishes Program

2021· article· en· W3206788159 on OpenAlexaff
Thanh H. Neville, Danielle Bear, Yu-Han Kao, Xueqing Sherry Xu, Kristen Hjelmhaug, Desiree Quebral, Natalie Sanaee, Jessica Hainje, Genevieve Arriola, Maria Carmela Granone, Elizabeth B. White, Shuyi Yu, France Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicMedicinePalliative careObservational studyEnd-of-life careDiseaseFamily medicineHealth careIntervention (counseling)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Patient- and family-centered end-of-life care can be difficult to achieve in light of visitation restrictions and infection-prevention measures. We evaluated how the 3 Wishes Program evolved to allow continued provision of compassionate end-of-life care for critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: This is a prospective observational study where data were collected 1 year prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and 1 year after (from March 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021). The number of deceased patients whose care involved the 3 Wishes Program, their characteristics, and wishes were compared between prepandemic and pandemic periods. SETTING: Six adult ICUs of a two-hospital health system in Los Angeles. PATIENTS: Deceased patients whose care involved the 3 Wishes Program. INTERVENTIONS: The 3 Wishes Program is a palliative care intervention in which individualized wishes are implemented for dying patients and their families. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, the end-of-life care for 523 patients involved the 3 Wishes Program; more patients received the 3 Wishes Program as part of their end-of-life care during the pandemic period than during the prepandemic study period (24.8 vs 17.6 patients/mo; p = 0.044). Patients who died during the pandemic compared with prepandemic were less likely to have family at the bedside and more likely to have postmortem wishes fulfilled for their families. Compared with the 736 wishes implemented during the prepandemic period, the 969 wishes completed during the pandemic were more likely to involve keepsakes. Wishes were most commonly implemented by bedside nurses, although the 3 Wishes Program project manager (not involved in the patient’s clinical care) was more likely to assist remotely during the pandemic (24.8% vs 12.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside innovations, programmatic adaptations, and institutional support made it possible for healthcare workers to continue the 3 Wishes Program and provide compassionate end-of-life care in the ICU during this pandemic.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207