Triggering palliative care referrals through the identification of poor prognosis in older patients presented to emergency departments in rural Australia.

Background: Without objective screening for risk of death, the palliative care needs of older patients near the end of life may be unrecognised and unmet. Aim: This study aimed to estimate the usefulness of the Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care (CriSTAL) tool in determining older patients' risk of death within 3-months after initial hospital admission. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 235 patients aged 70+ years, who presented to two rural emergency departments in two adjacent Australian states, was utilised. The 'risk of death' of each patient was screened with the CriSTAL prognostic tool. Their 3-month follow-up outcomes were assessed through telephone interviews and a clinical record review. Findings: A CriSTAL cut-off score of more than 7 yielded a sensitivity of 80.7% and specificity of 70.81% for a 3-month risk of death. Palliative care services were only used by 31% of the deceased in their last trimester of life. Conclusion: Prognostic tools provide a viable means of identifying individuals with a poor prognosis. Identification can trigger an earlier referral to palliative care, which will benefit the patient's wellbeing and quality of life.

Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses.

BACKGROUND: Camouflage patterns that hinder detection and/or recognition by antagonists are widely studied in both human and animal contexts. Patterns of contrasting stripes that purportedly degrade an observer's ability to judge the speed and direction of moving prey ('motion dazzle') are, however, rarely investigated. This is despite motion dazzle having been fundamental to the appearance of warships in both world wars and often postulated as the selective agent leading to repeated patterns on many animals (such as zebra and many fish, snake, and invertebrate species). Such patterns often appear conspicuous, suggesting that protection while moving by motion dazzle might impair camouflage when stationary. However, the relationship between motion dazzle and camouflage is unclear because disruptive camouflage relies on high-contrast markings. In this study, we used a computer game with human subjects detecting and capturing either moving or stationary targets with different patterns, in order to provide the first empirical exploration of the interaction of these two protective coloration mechanisms. RESULTS: Moving targets with stripes were caught significantly less often and missed more often than targets with camouflage patterns. However, when stationary, targets with camouflage markings were captured less often and caused more false detections than those with striped patterns, which were readily detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the clearest evidence to date that some patterns inhibit the capture of moving targets, but that camouflage and motion dazzle are not complementary strategies. Therefore, the specific coloration that evolves in animals will depend on how the life history and ontogeny of each species influence the trade-off between the costs and benefits of motion dazzle and camouflage.