Palliative Approach to Care Education for Multidisciplinary Staff of Long-Term Care Homes: A Pretest Post-Test Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a single-group pre-test and post-test design to evaluate an educational workshop for multidisciplinary staff working in long-term care homes on implementing a palliative approach to care and perceptions about advanced care planning conversations. Two outcomes were measured to assess the preliminary efficacy of the educational workshop at baseline and 1-month post-intervention. Knowledge regarding implementing a palliative approach to care was assessed using the End-of-Life Professional Caregivers Survey and changes in staff perception toward ACP conversations were assessed using the Staff Perceptions Survey. Findings suggest that staff experienced an improvement in self-reported knowledge regarding a palliative approach to care ( p ≤ .001); and perceptions of knowledge, attitude, and comfort related to advance care planning discussions ( p ≤ .027). The results indicate that educational workshops can assist in improving multidisciplinary staff’s knowledge about a palliative approach to care and comfort in carrying out advance care planning discussions with residents, family care partners, and among long-term care staff.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".