Factors associated with dietitian referrals to support long‐term care residents advancing towards the end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietitians are central members of the multidisciplinary long-term care (LTC) healthcare team. The overall aim of this current investigation is to gain a better understanding of dietitian involvement in LTC resident's end-of-life care via referrals. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews for 164 deceased residents (mean age = 88.3 ± 7.3; 61% female) in 18 LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, identified dietitian referrals and documented eating challenges recorded over 2-week periods at four time points (i.e., 6 months, 3 months, 1 month and 2 weeks) prior to death. Nutrition care plans at the beginning of these time points were also noted. Logistic mixed effects regression models identified time-varying predictors of dietitian referrals. Bivariate tests identified associations between nutrition orders and dietitian referrals that occurred in the last month of life. RESULTS: Nearly three-quarters (73%) of participants had at least one dietitian referral across the four observations. Referrals increased significantly with proximity to death; 45% of residents had a referral documented in the last 2 weeks of life. Dietitian referrals were associated with the number of eating challenges (odds ratio [OR] = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27, 1.58). Comfort-focused nutrition care orders were significantly more common when a dietitian was referred (25%) compared with when a dietitian was not referred (12%) in the final month of life (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that dietitians are involved in end-of-life and comfort-focused nutrition care initiatives, yet they are not engaged consistently for this purpose. This presents a significant opportunity for dietitians to upskill and champion palliative approaches to nutrition care within the multidisciplinary LTC team.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".