Physicians' perspectives of prognosis and goals of care discussions after hip fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. RESULTS: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. CONCLUSION: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".