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.

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 15 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective The primary aim of the present study was to investigate Australian ED staff perspectives and needs regarding palliative care provision. Secondary aims were to assess staff views about death and dying, and their awareness of common causes of death in Australia, particularly those where a palliative care approach is appropriate. Methods All medical and nursing staff working in a private ED in Perth, Western Australia, were asked to complete a combined quantitative and qualitative survey. The survey tool uses a combination of Likert-type scales and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons were made for all quantifiable variables, whereas formal content analysis was used for text responses. Results Surveys were returned by 22 doctors and 44 nurses, with most reporting only working knowledge of palliative care but clinical proficiency in symptom control. Confidence in palliative care provision was lower among nursing than medical staff but educational needs were similar. Cancer diagnoses were consistently overestimated, and dementia and COPD underestimated, as the most common causes of death. Only six of 63 (9.5%) of respondents identified the correct top five causes of death. Conclusions Our study suggests that although ED staff expressed confidence regarding symptom management in palliative care, they lacked understanding of the patients in whom a palliative approach could be applied and sought further education in areas, such as end-of-life communication and ethical issues. ED specific training and clinical interventions in palliative care provision would seem to be needed and justified.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 15/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 1 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 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. 9 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 15 of 100. Total 15 of 100.9 of the 62 points we could judge = 15 of 100

Regulatory decision — not a study. It scored 15 on the same rubric, which is below the 16 cap we apply to non-peer-reviewed sources. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 9 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 15 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 1 / 10 Regulatory decision — not a study. Named source is a regulator (FDA / EMA / CMS / SEC).
How recent 1 / 5 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 24713040)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 9 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 9 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 15 out of 100.
Total 15 / 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

Shearer, F. M., Rogers, I. R., Monterosso, L., Ross-Adjie, G., & Rogers, JR. (2014). Understanding emergency department staff needs and perceptions in the provision of palliative care. Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12215

Vancouver

Shearer FM, Rogers IR, Monterosso L, Ross-Adjie G, Rogers JR. Understanding emergency department staff needs and perceptions in the provision of palliative care. Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA. 2014. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12215. PMID: 24713040.

BibTeX

@article{shearer2014-24713040,
  author  = {Shearer, F. M. and Rogers, I. R. and Monterosso, L. and Ross-Adjie, G. and Rogers, JR.},
  title   = {{Understanding emergency department staff needs and perceptions in the provision of palliative care}},
  journal = {Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1111/1742-6723.12215},
  pmid    = {24713040},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12215}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Also tagged “delirium”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →