Continuous Ambulatory Delivery Device Use for Patients Managed by an Inpatient Palliative Care Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) via a Continuous Ambulatory Delivery Device (CADD) is a common and effective means of pain and symptom management for hospitalized patients with a malignancy. Studies exploring the indications for starting such a device for hospitalized inpatients referred to inpatient palliative care teams are limited. AIM: This retrospective chart review aims to explore indications, timing of initiation, and barriers to the use of a CADD. METHODS: Over a six month period, during daily inpatient palliative care consult team rounds, patients who required a CADD were enrolled in this study. Sixty-one adult patients were identified who required a pump for symptom control. The team's database sheets were used to capture patient demographics. RESULTS: The main reasons for initiating a Continuous Ambulatory Delivery Device in the above setting included: lack of efficacy of oral opioids and to increase patient autonomy of their pain management. Approximately 20% of patients required transfer to another unit that could accommodate the CADD. The median length of stay for these patients was 13 days, with a median length of half a day for a pump to be started. CONCLUSIONS: This initial study provides the Palliative Care Consult Team with information on the indications for the use of a CADD. The lack of universal access to a CADD in various areas of our hospital due to differences in departmental protocols may compromise good symptom management and patient safety. These results strengthen the argument that the existing hospital policy requires revamping to improve CADD access. A CADD has been shown to provide hospitalized patients, with a malignancy, with timely access to effective symptom management, and in turn, reducing their length of stay in hospital. These findings will help inform this organization's CADD policy and support the need to broaden access to this device.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".