MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220708474 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2021.0539

Content of Tele-Palliative Care Consultations with Patients Receiving Dialysis

2022· article· en· W4220708474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katharine L. Cheung, Samantha F. Smoger, Manjula Kurella Tamura, Renee D. Stapleton, Terry Rabinowitz, Michael A. LaMantia, Robert Gramling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careConversationPopulationFamily medicineDialysisAdvance care planningNursingInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Little is known about the content of communication in palliative care telehealth conversations in the dialysis population. Understanding the content and process of these conversations may lead to insights about how palliative care improves quality of life. Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of video recordings obtained during a pilot palliative teleconsultation program. We recruited patients receiving dialysis from five facilities affiliated with an academic medical center. Palliative care clinicians conducted teleconsultation using a wall-mounted screen with a camera mounted on a pole and positioned mid-screen in the line of sight to facilitate direct eye contact. Patients used an iPad that was attached to an IV pole positioned next to the dialysis chair. Conversations were coded using a preexisting framework of themes and content from the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System—Renal. Results: We recruited 39 patients to undergo a telepalliative care consultation while receiving dialysis, 34 of whom completed the teleconsultation. Specialty palliative care clinicians (3 physicians and 1 nurse practitioner) conducted 35 visits with 34 patients. Median (interquartile range) duration of conversation was 42 (28–57) minutes. Most frequently discussed content included sources of strength (91%), critical abilities (88%), illness understanding (85%), fears and worries (85%), what family knows (85%), fatigue (77%), and pain (65%). Process features such as summarizing statements (85%) and making a recommendation (82%) were common, whereas connectional silence (56%), and emotion expression (21%) occurred less often. Conclusions: Unscripted palliative care conversations in outpatient dialysis units through telemedicine exhibited many domains recommended by the SICG, with less frequent discussion of symptoms. Emotion expression was uncommon for these conversations that occurred in an open setting.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207