MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408803121 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091331

Hospital-based specialist palliative care involvement before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: secondary analysis of a regional retrospective decedent cohort study in Ottawa, Canada

2025· article· en· W4408803121 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter G. Lawlor, Valérie Gratton, Leila Cohen, Samantha Rose Adeli, Ella Besserer, Rebekah Murphy, Grace Warmels, Adrianna Bruni, Monisha Kabir, Chelsea Noël, Brandon Heidinger, Koby Anderson, Kyle Arsenault‐Mehta, Krista Wooller, Julie Lapenskie, Colleen Webber, Daniel Bédard, Paula Enright, Isabelle Desjardins, Khadija Bhimji, Claire Dyason, Akshai Iyengar, Shirley H. Bush, Sarina R. Isenberg, Peter Tanuseputro, Brandi Vanderspank‐Wright, Henrique A. Parsons, James Downar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoQueensway-Carleton HospitalInstitut du Savoir MontfortUniversity of OttawaBruyère
FundersOttawa Hospital Research InstituteHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineReferralRetrospective cohort studyCohortEmergency medicineCohort studyIntensive care unitPandemicPalliative careEnd-of-life carePediatricsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineInternal medicineDiseaseNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the occurrence and clinicodemographic associations of hospital-based specialist palliative care (SPC) referral before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, timing of completed SPC consultation and comparative prevalence of 'no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)' orders, and end-of-life medication use, according to SPC involvement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study with a pre-pandemic (November 2019 to February 2020) group (Pre-COVID, n=170) and two intra-pandemic (March to August 2020) groups, one without (COVID-ve, n=170) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve, n=85). In the cohort study, Pre-COVID and COVID-ve group decedents were matched 2:1 on age, sex and care service (internal medicine/intensive care unit (ICU)) at death with COVID+ve decedents. In our current secondary analysis, clinicodemographic variables associated with SPC referral were examined in multivariable logistic regression, reporting adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% CIs. SETTING: One quaternary and two tertiary acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Decedent cohort with a terminal hospital admission (N=425). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SPC referral (yes/no) and timing of completed SPC consultation before death. Additional outcomes included 'no CPR' status and end-of-life medication prescription and dosing. RESULTS: SPC referral occurred in 70 (41.2%), 71 (41.8%) and 26 (30.6%) of the Pre-COVID, COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups, respectively (p=0.18). The aORs for SPC referral were lower for deaths in ICU (0.07; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.16) and admissions from nursing homes/long-term care (0.45; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.9), and higher for active cancer (2.5; 95% CI 1.39 to 4.39). Recipients of SPC consultation, compared with non-recipients, more frequently had a 'no CPR' order, had it placed earlier and were more frequently prescribed palliative end-of-life medications. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital SPC consultation rates early in the COVID-19 pandemic were largely maintained at pre-pandemic levels. Having active cancer was positively associated with SPC referral, whereas both ICU death and having a nursing home/long-term care pre-admission source were negatively associated with referral.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→