Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care in the EDHeart failure, a common presentation in the ED is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.This is a patient group that have a poor quality of life and would benefit from early palliative care but it's not often considered in the ED for various reasons.So, it was interesting to read a study by Lewinski and colleagues from Canada, they sought to evaluate the use of palliative care services in patients with heart failure presenting to the ED.The primary outcome studied was palliative care involvement.Secondary outcomes of the study were: (1) 1 year mortality, (2) ED visits, (3) hospital admissions, and (4) Heart Failure Clinic involvement.They conducted a health records review of 500 heart failure patients who presented to two Canadian academic hospital EDs.Unsurprisingly, they found that few heart failure patients had palliative care services.Additionally, the majority of those that had palliative care involvement did not meet current recommendations for early palliative care involvement in heart failure.The authors suggest that the Emergency Department may be an appropriate setting to identify and refer high risk heart failure patients who could benefit from earlier palliative care.Although a small study of only two hospitals, this thought provoking paper is well worth a read as it raises questions about the function of emergency care in the future.There is little doubt that increasing longevity and more effective management of chronic disease calls for greater palliative care knowledge and skills in ED Clinicians Thus we will need to engage more with the palliative specialty as there is much we can learn from them.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.561 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".