FAMILY PERCEPTIONS ABOUT ENGAGING IN PALLIATIVE CARE CONFERENCES FOR THEIR LOVED ONES WHO LIVE IN LONG-TERM CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the high mortality rates in long term care (LTC), most LTC homes do not have a formalized palliative program. Communication with family members or care partners is critical to prepare them for end-of-life and promotes shared decision-making. The aim of this study was to explore family perceptions about engaging in Palliative Care Conferences (PCCs) which were held for their loved one who was dying in LTC. This study was conducted in four provinces in Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) and utilized a qualitative description design. Of the 36 family members who were interviewed, 12 were bereaved and 24 were non-bereaved. Overall, they felt that PCCs provided a venue for learning and appreciated the interdisciplinary approach. It gave them some time and space to develop stronger, more caring relationships with staff that sometimes was difficult to do during normal day-to-day activities. Family stated the PCCs were informative and promoted quality communication. They also described how the timing of PCCs and other discussions is important so they don’t feel rushed and can ‘go at their own pace’, allowing them to receive the information that they need when they are ready for it. PCCs appear to feasible and support a family-centered approach to care, which relies on strong communication. Future work needs to include a more rigorous evaluation that builds PCCs into everyday practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".