Outcomes of an Acute Palliative Care Unit at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The acute palliative care unit (APCU) bridges between active cancer treatment and hospice care. However, no study has proven the efficacy of APCU in Korea. Objective: To evaluate the first-year outcomes of the patients admitted to an APCU at a tertiary hospital in Korea. Design: The APCU admitted 205 patients between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2015. Of these patients, 57 were evaluable for baseline and one-week follow-up Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Results: Of the 57 participants, 56.1% were male, with a median age of 60 years (range, 52.8–69.5 years). All patients had advanced cancer, and 42 out of 57 had terminal illnesses. The median APCU stay was 14 days (range, 10–17 days). The 42 (73.7%) patients were referred to the APCU after anticancer treatment was completed. Ten (17.5%) patients died during their stay, and 20 (35.1%) were discharged home. Among those who completed the ESAS, there were significant improvements in scores in the following symptoms: fatigue, depression, loss of appetite, and shortness of breath. Physical symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, and shortness of breath) and the total ESAS scores were significantly improved ( p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Each non-medical palliative care program, such as art and music therapy, yoga, foot massage, haircut, and body care, showed no significant differences between the group who received them and those who did not. Conclusion: During the APCU stay, the overall symptoms of inpatients were reduced. A comprehensive and multidisciplinary team approach is essential for patients who need palliative 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".