Contextual factors influencing success or failure of emergency department interventions for cognitively impaired older people: a scoping and integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a scoping review of research on cognitive impairment in older adults who visit Emergency Departments of acute care hospitals, followed by an integrative review that included a quality assessment to determine the effectiveness of interventions for this population. BACKGROUND: Being old and cognitively impaired in the Emergency Department--a fast-paced intervention system--is a complex phenomenon that challenges many healthcare professionals. The rise in the incidence and prevalence of dementia will have a large impact on healthcare systems. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, AgeLine, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar between 1990 and 2008, for qualitative or quantitative studies reporting extractable data on delirium or dementia in non-institutionalized older people (65+ years) in the Emergency Department. REVIEW METHODS: Titles screened by a project researcher and checked against inclusion criteria by another researcher. Two reviewers completed independent data extraction and synthesis of included studies. Quality assessment occurred using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tools. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for integrative review. Analysis of these studies indicates that the prevalence of cognitive impairment is high and improvements are needed. Contextual details and relevant features of an appropriate intervention are poorly explained. CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment is recognized, appropriate interventions and programmatic responses remain elusive. Quality improvements require more thorough examination of emergency department context to identify modifiable influencing factors that are transferable across settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".