Care of the Older Adult in the Emergency Department: Nurses Views of the Pressing Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to describe nurses' views of the issues to be addressed to improve care of the older adult in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN AND METHODS: An exploratory content analysis examined the qualitative responses of 527 registered nurses from 49 U.S. hospitals who completed the Geriatric Institutional Profile. RESULTS: 5 central themes emerged from the analysis, representing a lack of older person hospital environment fit in the ED: (a) respect for the older adult and carers, (b) correct and best procedures and treatment, (c) time and staff to do things right, (d) transitions, and (e) a safe and enabling environment. The nurses offered solutions to address lack of fit, including modifications to the social climate, policies and procedures, care systems and processes, and physical design. IMPLICATIONS: The nurses' descriptions of the pressing issues surrounding care of older adults in the ED provide useful information to consider when developing a senior-friendly ED. Results also illuminate solutions that can be taken to address issues. These solutions give direction for future intervention research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".