ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
A pilot study of the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) tool to screen older emergency department patients for palliative care in Malaysia.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) tool was developed as a brief screening tool to be used in the emergency department for early identification of patients needing palliative care. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the tool in the Malaysian setting by assessing its feasibility, acceptability, diagnostic accuracy, and prognostic value for 3-month mortality. This was a prospective, observational single-center study involving patients aged 60 and above admitted from the emergency department from June 2024 to April 2025. Emergency clinicians screened patients using the P-CaRES tool, while a palliative care physician-blinded to the screening results-independently assessed whether the patient required palliative care using structured clinical information. Screening feasibility was measured by time-to-completion, and acceptability was assessed using a modified Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI). Patients were followed up to determine 3-month mortality. A total of 40 patients were enrolled. Mean screening time was 3.32 (SD ± 1.23) min. The tool had high acceptability with 100% of clinicians agreeing that the tool was useful and would benefit their patients. The P-CaRES screening demonstrated a 33.3% sensitivity, 93.8% specificity, 88.9% positive predictive value (PPV), and 48.4% negative predictive value (NPV). P-CaRES agreement with palliative care opinion was fair (kappa = 0.23). The 3-month mortality was 55.6% for P-CaRES positive and 6.5% P-CaRES negative. These findings suggest that the P-CaRES is a feasible and acceptable tool to identify patients at risk of short-term mortality. However, given its low sensitivity in the study cohort, its role as a screening tool for palliative care referrals may be limited. Further training in palliative care for the cohort, refinement, and validation of the tool are needed to improve its reliability and applicability in the Malaysian context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41770298What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.