MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

280: TRANSPORT OF THE CRITICAL CARE PATIENT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CARE IN THE HOME: A SCOPING REVIEW

2022· review· en· W4313218702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Milesky, Shawn Brast

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineScopusEnd-of-life careMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)NursingFamily medicinePopulationDistressPalliative carePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: While most people state they want to die at home, evidence shows that many die in an institutional setting. Deaths in the intensive care unit contribute to family distress, moral distress of staff, and organizational strain. Transport of the critical care patient to their home for withdrawal of care and death is a possible, understudied, underutilized option. The authors performed a search and scoping review to determine the current practice and trends globally. Methods: Search terms discharge of ICU patients for home hospice were searched among the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus. Results were filtered to the last ten years and in the English language, which yielded 312 articles. Article abstracts were independently reviewed by two authors for the appropriate intervention: Transport of the ICU patient to home for withdrawal of care, yielding 19 articles. The authors added 6 articles via hand-searching which yielded 25 total articles for review. Results: 25 articles were reviewed published between the years 2011-2021. Most articles were case studies or retrospective chart reviews. Qualitative studies were beneficial to explore the healthcare provider perspective as well as that of the family. Most articles came from the United States and United Kingdom, with some from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore. The practice was most commonly discussed within the pediatric population, though some centers were offering the intervention to adults. Benefits discussed included: Increased ease in end-of-life discussions when the family saw the opportunity for a “better” death, enhanced family bereavement, privacy and memory making during the dying process in the home, and decreased moral distress in staff. Barriers identified include the complex interdisciplinary teamwork necessary for implementation, the varying scope of EMS across states and countries, perceived medical complexity of the patient, and caregiver support once the patient returns home. Conclusions: Critical care transport to home for the aim of withdrawal of life support and death is a safe, feasible, compassionate option for patients and their families. If this option is pursued, it involves complex multidisciplinary planning and contingency planning to mitigate challenges and maintain safety.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→