End-of-Life Care in Acute Care Hospitals in Canada: A Quality Finish?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding patients' and family members' perspectives on the relative importance of elements of end-of-life (EOL) care and their satisfaction with those elements will help prioritize quality improvement initiatives. We administered a face-to-face questionnaire containing a selection of 28 elements of care to eligible inpatients with advanced lung, heart, or liver disease, or metastatic cancer, and available family caregivers (FCGs) in five tertiary care hospitals across Canada. 440 of 569 (78%) eligible patients and 160 of 176 (91%) FCGs participated. No respondent reported complete satisfaction with all elements of care. The average satisfaction score was 4.6 on a 26 point scale. Medical patients reported lower levels of satisfaction than cancer patients. Elements rated as "extremely important" and anything other than "completely satisfied" most frequently by respondents related to discharge planning, availability of home health services, symptom relief, not being a burden, physician trust, and communication. In conclusion, most patients and their family members in our survey were not completely satisfied with EOL care. Improvement initiatives to target key elements identified by patients and FCGs have the potential to improve satisfaction with EOL care across care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".