Perspectives across Canada about implementing a palliative approach in long-term care during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term care (LTC) homes have been disproportionately impacted during COVID-19. PURPOSE: To explore the perspectives of stakeholders across Canada around implementing a palliative approach in LTC home during COVID-19. METHODS: Qualitative, descriptive design using one-to-one or paired semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) the influence of the pandemic on implementing a palliative approach, (2) families are an essential part of implementing a palliative approach, (3) prioritizing advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care (GoC) discussions in anticipation of the overload of deaths and (4) COVID-19 highlighting the need for a palliative approach as well as several subthemes. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic influenced the implementation of a palliative approach to care, where many LTC homes faced an overwhelming number of deaths and restricted the presence of family members. A more concentrated focus on home-wide ACP and GoC conversations and the need for a palliative approach to care in LTC were identified.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".