Palliative care nurses’ perceptions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: a pilot survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: to evaluate, at a pilot level, palliative care nurses' perceptions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale's (ESAS's) feasibility and usefulness. METHODS: all nurses working within the Edmonton Palliative Care Programme were provided with a one-page document containing five statements about the benefits and feasibility of the ESAS, and invited to rate each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree). RESULTS: of the 74 nursing staff employed in the programme, 48 (64.9%) chose to participate in this study. Perceptions of the ESAS were most favourable among the 22 registered nurses: 21 (95.4%) believed the ESAS helped staff care for patients; and 17 (77.3%) believed patients benefited from implementation of the instrument. Most registered nurses found that the ESAS took little time and effort to complete. Licensed practical nurses and nursing attendants had a less favourable perception of the ESAS. CONCLUSION: the results of this pilot study demonstrate that palliative care nurses' perceptions of the ESAS are favourable generally, although they vary according to level of professional training. A full-scale study will be necessary to attain a more in-depth evaluation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".