A Standard Practice Protocol for Addressing Depression in a Hospice Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression can worsen physical suffering and psychiatric distresses in individuals with life-limiting illnesses and is associated with increased rates of pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and worse survival outcomes. Evidence supports protocol development to address depression in the hospice setting using validated screening tools and a process for referral and treatment. After protocol development and integration of validated screening tools into the electronic medical record, newly admitted patients meeting inclusion criteria were screened during the social workers' initial psychosocial assessment. Patients were referred for pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment strategies based on the severity of depression detailed in the protocol. Of all patients who met inclusion criteria, 100% were screened using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 with 52% being identified as having some severity of depression, 26% being appropriately referred for treatment, and 50% receiving a pharmacological strategy, whereas 26% received nonpharmacological strategies. There was a statistically significant difference in severity of depression found between those identified as having a depressed mood preintervention and those with some severity of depression using a validated screening tool postintervention. Implementing a standardized practice protocol to address depression in a hospice setting allowed for consistent evaluation through the use of validated screening tool(s) and increased recognition of those with symptoms of depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".