Medical Outcomes of Oncology Inpatients With and Without Chaplain Spiritual Care Visit: The Yale New Haven Hospital Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although there exists some literature on the psychosocial elements of health between patients with and without spiritual care, less information is available on hospital health outcomes. Hence, we aimed to describe and compare health care utilization and outcomes among medical oncology patients who received and did not receive spiritual care consultation during inpatient admission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of medical oncology patients admitted to Yale New Haven Hospital between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, to compare hospital outcomes between patients with and without spiritual care. RESULTS: Thirty-one thousand six hundred twenty-three patients were included, of whom 11,053 (35%) received a chaplain spiritual care visit and had a spiritual care note. Patients who received spiritual care were older and sicker. Readmission rates within 30 days were greater in the spiritual care group (OR = 1.07; P = .018). In addition, patients receiving spiritual care were at greater odds of increased length of stay (β = 4.92; P < .0001), intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.98; P < .0001), hospital death (OR = 1.46; P < .0001), and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge (OR = 1.17; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients who were older and sicker had greater spiritual care utilization than their younger and healthier counterparts. Spiritual care assessment of existential distress, complex grief, and faith-based support may be positively associated not only with patient care and quality of life but also with health care utilization and outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".