RNCohortJournal of clinical nursing2025

A Point Prevalence Study of Need and Provision of Palliative Care in Adult and Medical Surgical Inpatients.

Alannah L Cooper, Dipna Martin-Robins, Natalie Panizza and 2 others

PMID 40207675

WHAT IT FOUND

Across 865 adult public hospital inpatients, 38% had palliative care indicators, and 70% of those had no evidence of receiving any palliative care.

Key findings

0138% of adult inpatients had potential palliative care need based on proactive indicators.

0270% of patients with indicators had no evidence of receiving any form of palliative care or awaiting specialist palliative care.

03Medical patients were more likely than surgical patients to have indicators for palliative care (45%, n=267 vs 23%, n=64).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study covered only four Western Australian public hospitals, so it may not apply to other hospitals or countries. Data came from medical records, and variable recording quality could under- or over-estimate palliative care need. The study did not identify which patients had complex needs requiring specialist input and which could be managed with a generalist approach. It did not measure patient outcomes, so it cannot show whether palliative care improved quality of life or symptom control. It was a point prevalence audit on selected days, so it may not show palliative care need over time.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that palliative care improves outcomes. The study counted patients who had indicators and whether records showed palliative care, but it did not compare patients who received palliative care with patients who did not.

Read it on PubMed →