Senior-Friendly Emergency Department Care: An Environmental Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to assess the environment of an emergency department (ED) and its impact on care of adults aged 75 and over, using a 'senior-friendly' conceptual framework that included the physical environment, social climate, hospital policies and procedures, and wider health care system. METHODS: in this focused ethnography, we collected and analysed data from the ED of a regional acute care hospital located in Ontario, Canada from October 2007 to January 2008. Data collection included interviews with seniors or their proxy decision-makers, staff and key community informants; on-site observations; a staff survey; and hospital administrative data. Data sets were individually analysed and a synthesis of findings developed to formulate recommendations for policy, practice and education. RESULTS: staff expressed their vision of providing senior-friendly care. However, the ED was fast-paced, overcrowded, chaotic and lacked orientation and wayfinding cues, as well as appropriate equipment and furniture, all of which created barriers to providing appropriate care. Seniors' expectations often went unmet and staff expressed moral angst at recognizing unmet needs. Some hospital policies and procedures compounded these difficulties, including hallway practice, lack of off-hour access to multidisciplinary health care professionals, and the inability of patients to access food and drink. Better communication and coordination between the ED and other components of the health care system are needed. CONCLUSIONS: the ED is an important part of seniors' health care. Changes to policy and practices, and enhanced education must occur to better meet the complex health care needs of seniors. This assessment provides a method that can be replicated elsewhere to generate site-specific recommendations and initiate capacity development processes to enhance senior-friendly care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".