Levels of Medical Intervention and End-of-Life Practices in Long-Term Care Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Levels of medical intervention (LMI) are legal documents in which physicians record patient preferences, or those of their designated substitute decision-makers, concerning end-of-life care. Studies suggest that, although LMI are intended to orient clinical practice, their function tends to be limited to logistical aspects of care. How LMI shapes or guides patient-centred, end-of-life care remains unclear. The aim of this study was to examine possible associations between LMI and certain aspects of end-of-life care practices in LTCC, such as nurse-documented patient experiences of pain, and prescription and administration of medication. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study of 100 files retrieved from a clinical database of deceased patients in LTCCs located in an urban integrated health and social service organization in Québec, Canada, was conducted. Results: Significant associations between last documented LMI and frequency of narcotic prescription and administration, at either regular intervals or PRN, are highlighted. The time delay between last LMI assessment and patient death was one week or less for 39.4% of cases. Conclusion: These results suggest that LMI assessment practices may not correspond to their intended use. A short time frame between last LMI (L-LMI) assessment and patient death may suggest less-than-optimal patient comfort in end-of-life care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".