Influência dos cuidados de enfermagem de reabilitação no controlo em cuidados paliativos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cialist in rehabilitation, I realised that the two disciplines are complementary and governed, largely, by the same principles.Nevertheless, what is often observed is that the palliative care and the rehabilitation care are offered to people who are in opposite stages of their life/disease process.I believe that the two disciplines can be complementary in benefit of palliative patients and reflecting on this issue, I verify that there is a symptom which is urgent to study in this perspective: the dyspnea.This option is based on its high prevalence in palliative context, on its influence on the functional capacity and on the patients quality of life.This work aims to identify the influence that the nursing rehabilitation (pulmonary rehabilitation) has on the control of dyspnea and on the performance status of the palliative patients, and, to verify if there is a correlation between the performance status and dyspnea.This is a pre-experimental study, which uses a quantitative approach.The sample was composed by 6 patients who were admitted in the palliative care ward of Casa de Sade da Idanha, in Lisbon.The tools used for data collection were the Edmonton System Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS).In all patients there was a decrease of the degree of dyspnea.The performance status has not improved in none of them, but due to limitations of clinical status, not related to pulmonary rehabilitation.Apparently there is no correlation between the performance status and dyspnea.We concluded that the pulmonary rehabilitation contributes to reducing the dyspnea in palliative patient, even in last days/hours 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".