The centrality of nursing in realizing high quality palliative care: Exploring Canada’s framework on palliative care priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following an earlier mixed-method survey in which we asked stakeholders to report on their perceptions of the progress made in relation to Canada's Framework on Palliative Care and Action Plan, the purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth qualitative exploration of the factors influencing that progress, or lack thereof. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study conducted in Canada. Inclusion criteria included experience with palliative care in Canada in a professional or volunteer capacity. Interviews were conducted by telephone using an interview guide that asked specific questions in relation to the Framework on palliative care priorities (e.g., education, caregiver support, and equitable access). Data was analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. RESULTS: Thirty-five diverse stakeholders with extensive experience in palliative care were interviewed. In relation to palliative education, participants indicated that although there were excellent palliative care resources available across the country there was further need for embedding palliative care in undergraduate education and for mentored opportunities to engage in care across diverse contexts. The identification, development, and strategic positioning of champions was an important strategy for improving palliative care knowledge and capacity. The development of standard competencies was viewed as an important step forward; although, there was a need to include more members of the care-team and to create pathways for life-long learning. In relation to support for family caregivers, even as participants cited numerous community-based resources offered by not-for-profit organizations, they described significant barriers including a shortage of in-home support, lack of understanding of what caregivers do, and policy-based contractual and privacy issues. In relation to palliative care access, participants described a nurse-centered, consult-based, multi-site and multi-provider model of care that was facilitated by technology. Barriers to this model were systemic healthcare issues of siloed, fragmented, and for-profit care. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study had clear insights into the factors that would support or impede progress to the development of palliative care in Canada. Some of those factors were achievable within current health and educational systems. Other factors were going to require longer term and more comprehensive solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".