Advance Care Planning The Canadian approach and its advantages for the Austrian health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This master's thesis concentrates on the topic of Advance Care Planning, its implementation in Canada and possible ways it could be implemented in the Austrian health care system.Advance Care Planning is very popular within the Anglo-American region, and it is becoming more popular in Europe as well.At the moment, no standardized definition for Advance Care Planning is available, but all the definitions have one central meaning: Advance Care Planning is a continuous planning process which is carried out in several steps and includes communication between the patient, doctors, nursing staff and the family/relatives in order to document medical treatments that are not desired if certain situations arise during an illness.This thesis focuses first on the current situation in the Austrian health care system and the possible documentation and methods that are currently available ("Patientenverfügung" and "Vorsorgedialog").One of the options is for patients to stipulate non-desired medical treatments in a "Patientenverfügung". Few people in Austria currently have a "Patientenverfügung" or are even aware that issuing such a document is possible.The "Vorsorgedialog" is a communication and documentation process which was recently introduced and has been undergone trials in some nursing homes.After covering the Austrian system, the current research concentrated on gathering more information about Advance Care Planning in Canada by interviewing doctors, nursing staff and social workers across the country.The interviews included questions surrounding the implementation of Advance Care Planning, as well as the legal situation in the given region and the strengths and weaknesses of Advance Care Planning.In the final section, this thesis synthesizes the information gained through the interviews to provide an overview of opportunities for a future implementation of ACP in the Austrian health care system.26 cf.Smith 2008, p. 2. 27 cf.Veatch 2000, pp.21-22.28 cf.World Medical Association, (WMA).29 cf.World Medical Association, (WMA).30 cf.Marckmann 2015, p. 9. How does the law impact you in your work?Keywords: opinion on law, restrictions, differences in provinces 4. Cultural opinion and recommendations of the participant How does the Canadian culture influence the way you deal with Advance Care Planning?Do you have any recommendations for the future development of Advance Care Planning?
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".