MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394860906 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2024-pcc.16

16 Impact of gold standards framework accreditation on specialist palliative care referrals in acute hospital setting; addressing inequalities in access

2024· article· en· W4394860906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne M. Bowen, Katherine Hall, Louis Harpham-Lockyer

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralPalliative careMedicineAccreditationFamily medicineCancerQuarter (Canadian coin)InequalityNursingInternal medicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background It is established that people with a non-cancer diagnosis tend to have less access to supportive and palliative medicine and may have a poorer experience of care in the last phase of their life and this inequality is acknowledged within current end of life care provision. At Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (DGFT) we have implemented the Gold Standards Framework (GSF) trust wide, with eight wards achieving GSF accreditation, with continuing engagement across the trust. This review aimed to understand the impact implementing the GSF has had on the hospital specialist palliative care team referrals. Method Using PowerBI data analysis a retrospective review of the proportion of referrals by diagnosis group was performed over 16 months from January 2022 to April 2023 alongside the number of referrals. Results The review identified an increasing trend in the proportion of patients referred with a non-cancer diagnosis. From as baseline around 25% non-cancer and 75% cancer there has been a clear increase in the non-cancer referral to a 50:50 split. During this 16-month timeframe there was also continued growth in the number of referrals, with the increase driven from the non-cancer diagnosis group with a 48% average increase in referrals per quarter, whilst cancer group referral numbers remained stable (3% average growth per quarter). Conclusion This review highlights the benefits of embedding the GSF on improving identification of patients and increasing access to specialist palliative medicine, particularly for non-cancer patients. As a Specialist Hospital Palliative Care service, the local response to increased recognition has included the involvement within local non-cancer multidisciplinary meetings. These findings support the benefits of embedding the GSF to improve upon inequality in access to specialist palliative care for non-cancer patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207