Experiences of an Emergency Department Visit Among Older Adults and Their Families: Qualitative Findings From a Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits are critical events for older adults, but little is known regarding their experiences, particularly about their physical needs, the involvement of accompanying family members, and the transition back to the community. OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of an ED visit among patients aged 75 and older. METHODS: In a mixed-methods study, a cohort of patients aged 75 and older (or a family member) discharged from the ED back to the community was recruited from 4 urban EDs. A week following discharge, structured telephone interviews supplemented with open-ended questions were conducted. A subsample (76 patients, 32 family members) was purposefully selected. Verbatim transcripts of responses to the open-ended questions were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Experiences related to physical needs included comfort, equipment supporting mobility and autonomy, help when needed, and access to drink and food. Family members required opportunities to provide patient support and greater involvement in their care. At discharge, patients/families required adequate discharge education, resolution of their health problem, information on medications, and greater certainty about planned follow-up medical and home care services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest several areas that could be targeted to improve patient and family perceptions of the care at an ED visit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".