Primary Palliative Care in Huntington's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Palliative care practices, including communication about patient-centered goals of care and advance care planning (ACP), have the potential to enhance care throughout the course of Huntington's disease (HD) and related disorders. The goal of our project was to develop a pilot program that integrates primary palliative care practices with interdisciplinary care for HD. Objectives: (1) To train HD team members to facilitate goals of care and ACP conversations at all stages of HD; (2) To create materials for care planning in HD focused on patient-centered goals of care and health-related quality of life; and (3) To modify clinic workflow to include goals of care and ACP discussions. Methods: We defined planning domains to expand care planning beyond end-of-life concerns. We created a patient and family guide to advance care planning in HD. We conducted VitalTalk communications training with the HD team. We modified the interdisciplinary clinic workflow to include ACP and developed an EMR template for documentation. Results: After communication training, more team members felt well prepared to discuss serious news (12.5% to 50%) and manage difficult conversations (25% to 62.5%). The proportion of clinic visits including advance care planning discussions increased from 12.5% to 30.6% during the pilot phase. Conclusions: Provision of primary palliative care for HD in an interdisciplinary clinic is feasible. Integration of palliative care practices into HD specialty care requires additional training and modification of clinic operations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".