Community-based pediatric palliative care for health related quality of life, hospital utilization and costs lessons learned from a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with chronic complex-medical conditions comprise a small minority of children who require substantial healthcare with major implications for hospital utilization and costs in pediatrics. Community-Based Pediatric Palliative Care (CBPPC) provides a holistic approach to patient care that can improve their quality of life and lead to reduced costs of hospital care. This study's purpose was to analyze and report unpublished evaluation study results from 2007 that demonstrate the potential for CBPPC on Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and hospital utilization and costs in light of the increasing national focus on the care of children with complex-medical conditions, including the Affordable Care Act's emphasis on patient-centered outcomes. METHODS: A multi-method research design used primary data collected from caregivers to determine the Program's potential impact on HRQoL, and administrative data to assess the Program's potential impact on hospital utilization and costs. Caregivers (n=53) of children enrolled in the Northeast Florida CBPPC program (Community PedsCare) through the years 2002-2007 were recruited for the Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) study. Children (n=48) enrolled in the Program through years 2000-2006 were included in the utilization and cost study. RESULTS: HRQoL was generally high, and hospital charges per child declined by $1203 for total hospital services (p=.34) and $1047 for diagnostic charges per quarter (p=0.13). Hospital length of stay decreased from 2.92 days per quarter to 1.22 days per quarter (p<.05). CONCLUSION: The decrease in hospital utilization and costs and the high HRQoL results indicate that CBPPC has the potential to influence important outcomes for the quality of care available for children with complex-medical conditions and their caregivers.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".