Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Few patients with end-stage dementia are enrolled in hospice care. A palliative care approach would nonetheless seem to be appropriate in various care settings, including the acute care hospital. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial of palliative care in patients with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Tool [FAST] stage 6d-7f) who were hospitalized with acute illness. Intervention patients received recommendations by a palliative care team with the goal of enhancing patient comfort; control patients received usual care without these recommendations. Results Among 99 patients enrolled over 3 years, groups were comparable at baseline in terms of gender, age, race, dementia stage, and advance directive status. Outcomes were similar in terms of mean number of hospitalizations, average length of stay, and mortality. Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to receive a palliative care plan (23% versus 4%; p = 0.008), usually on discharge, and more decisions were made to forgo certain medical treatments but the numbers were small. Fewer patients in the intervention group received intravenous therapy throughout the admission (66% vs. 81%, p = 0.025). Overall, additional interventions included daily phlebotomy for at least half of the admission (41%), systemic antibiotics (75%), and new feeding tubes (44%). Including tubes present at the time of randomization, a total of 69% received long-term enteral feeding. Conclusion It was difficult for a palliative care research team to influence the care of advanced dementia patients in the acute hospital setting. When patients have advanced dementia, there may be unique barriers, including perceived prognostic uncertainty, difficulty assessing comfort level, and perceptions about tube feeding. There must be a reexamination of treatment approaches for this severely impaired group of patients. Further study should attempt to identify patients prior to the need for acute hospitalization so goals can be established when there is less urgency to make life and death decisions.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of palliative medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2000 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 99 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15859668)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 41 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total 71 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Ahronheim, J. C., Morrison, R. S., Morris, J., Baskin, S., & Meier, D. E. (2000). Palliative care in advanced dementia: a randomized controlled trial and descriptive analysis. Journal of palliative medicine. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2000.3.265

Vancouver

Ahronheim JC, Morrison RS, Morris J, Baskin S, Meier DE. Palliative care in advanced dementia: a randomized controlled trial and descriptive analysis. Journal of palliative medicine. 2000. doi:10.1089/jpm.2000.3.265. PMID: 15859668.

BibTeX

@article{ahronheim2000-15859668,
  author  = {Ahronheim, J. C. and Morrison, R. S. and Morris, J. and Baskin, S. and Meier, D. E.},
  title   = {{Palliative care in advanced dementia: a randomized controlled trial and descriptive analysis}},
  journal = {Journal of palliative medicine},
  year    = {2000},
  doi     = {10.1089/jpm.2000.3.265},
  pmid    = {15859668},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2000.3.265}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →