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 OpenAlex
Joanne M. Bowen, Katherine Hall, Louis Harpham-Lockyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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

<h3>Background</h3> 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. <h3>Method</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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). <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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