Support structures for healthcare professionals involved in medical assistance in dying: Quebec, Canada, and the international landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care came into effect in Quebec in 2015, nearly 30 Interdisciplinary Support Groups (ISGs) were formed to accompany practitioners and managers in the clinical, administrative, legal, and ethical practice of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). Today, significant variability is observed in the constitution, role and functioning of ISGs. Based on an overview of national and international support structures, we highlight the strengths and challenges of ISGs. This article presents the results of the first phase of research conducted with 245 people involved in the practice of MAiD in Quebec. The objective is to survey current ISG practices in order to contrast them with those of equivalent structures in Canada and around the world. The intention is to guide leaders in the development of support structures for their institutions. In summary, ISGs are distinguished by their interdisciplinary constitution, their decentralized nature, and their proximity to the teams in the field. However, their service offer remains largely unknown to caregivers and the general population. This can be explained by the undefined and unlimited nature of their mandate, but also by the gap between the scope of their mandate and the lack of funding they receive.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".