MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6989520822

Avoidability of hospitalisations at the end of life; a model for community nurses and GPs.

2016· other· en· W6989520822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychological interventionQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)Quarter (Canadian coin)Conceptual modelEnd-of-life careQualitative analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and introduction \nAlthough many patients prefer to stay and die at home at the end of life, many are hospitalised. For hospitalised patients with a short life expectancy, it has been estimated that a quarter of hospitalisations could have been avoided. Little is known about how to avoid hospitalisations for patients living at home. \n\nAim\nThe aim of the study was to develop a conceptual model for community nurses and general practitioners (GPs) of strategies for avoiding hospitalisation at the end of life for patients living at home. The research question was how hospitalisation at the end of life can be avoided, from the perspective of community nurses, family carers and GPs? \n\nMaterials and methods\nA qualitative design with in-depth interviews was used. Taking 30 cases of patients who died non-suddenly 15 community nurses, 18 family carers and 26 GPs were interviewed in depth. Of the 30 patients, 20 were hospitalised and 10 were not hospitalised in the last 3 months of life. The interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and a conceptual model was constructed based on the resulting themes. \n\nResults\nWe developed a model with five key strategies that could help avoid hospitalisation at the end of life. The key strategies were: \n1) marking the approach of death, and shifting the mindset; \n2) being able to provide acute treatment and care at home; \n3) anticipatory discussions and interventions to deal with expected severe problems; \n4) guiding and monitoring the patient and family in a holistic way through the illness trajectory; \n5) continuity of treatment and care at home. \nIf these five key strategies are followed in an interrelated way, this could help avoid hospitalisations, according to community nurses, family carers and GPs.\n\nConclusion\nThe merit of the model is that it offers insight in providing palliative care at home by community nurses and GPs and helps them to avoid hospitalisation at the end of life. It is recommended that for all patients residing at home community nurses and GPs work together as a team from the moment that it is marked that death is approaching up to the end of life.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→