Death and Dying in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: A Prospective Multicenter, Multinational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For hospitalized children admitted outside of a critical care unit, the location, mode of death, “do-not-resuscitate” order (DNR) use, and involvement of palliative care teams have not been described across high-income countries. Objective: To describe location of death, patient and terminal care plan characteristics of pediatric inpatient deaths inside and outside the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Design: Secondary analysis of inpatient deaths in the Evaluating Processes of Care and Outcomes of Children in Hospital (EPOCH) randomized controlled trial. Setting/Subjects: Twenty-one centers from Canada, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Measurement: Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient and terminal care plan characteristics. A multivariable generalized estimating equation examined if palliative care consult during hospital admission was associated with location of death. Results: A total of 365 of 144,539 patients enrolled in EPOCH died; 219 (60%) died in PICU and 143 (40%) died on another inpatient unit. Compared with other inpatient wards, patients who died in PICU were less likely to be expected to die, have a DNR or palliative care consult. Hospital palliative care consultation was more common in older children and independently associated with a lower adjusted odds (95% confidence interval) of dying in PICU [0.59 (0.52–0.68)]. Conclusion: Most pediatric inpatient deaths occur in PICU where patients were less likely to have a DNR or palliative care consult. Palliative care consultation could be better integrated into end-of-life care for younger children and those dying in PICU.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".