Efectividade da intervenção multidisciplinar em cuidados paliativos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine how a team-hospital support in palliative care can improve some aspects of quality of life of cancer patient follow-up is a hospital or an outpatient.We used two instruments -the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS) and rating scale of symptoms of Edmonton (ESAS) -at two different times before the intervention of EIHSCP and 10 days after the intervention of EIHSCP.The study took place in CHLN, Hospital de Santa Maria.The sample consisted of 37 cancer patients, which by reason of death during the study, was reduced to 25 patients.These 25 patients are mostly women (56%), and most cared for at home (76%), with caregiver effective in about 96% of cases.The reason for referral to the team stands combination of various reasons (pain, dyspnoea, psychological, social support) in 48%, pain in 32%, continuity of care in 16% and other symptoms in 4%.As for the Functional Level, measured by the ECOG and Karnofsky Performance Status Index was no difference in the degree of functional capacity in two stages, with the sample an oscillation between grades 2 and 3 of the ECOG.With regard to the Karnofsky Index, the sample remained approximately the average of 50%.It was as a result improvements in aspects related to symptomatic pain, appetite and depression.In other respects, there were significant changes evident in the aspects related to the importance of life for the patient, the anxiety of the family and in total POS score reflecting an overall improvement in the general aspects of quality of life for the patient.Given the approach to external consultation, the study population of 19 patients, the study showed improvements in total score from the POS, depression, anger, the importance of life for the patient and family anxiety, whereas the 6 patients followed in hospital, only improved the appetite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".