Care of the Older Adult in the Emergency Department: Nurses Views of the Pressing Issues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it