Factors Associated With Emergency Department Visits by People With Dementia Near the End of Life: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) attendance is common among people with dementia and increases toward the end of life. The aim was to systematically review factors associated with ED attendance among people with dementia approaching the end of life. DESIGN: Systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and gray literature. Quantitative studies of any design were eligible. Newcastle-Ottawa Scales and Cochrane risk-of-bias tools assessed study quality. Extracted data were reported narratively, using a theoretical model. Factors were synthesized based on strength of evidence using vote counting (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020193271). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults with dementia of any subtype and severity, in the last year of life, or in receipt of services indicative of nearness to end of life. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ED attendance, defined as attending a medical facility that provides 24-hour access to emergency care, with full resuscitation resources. RESULTS: After de-duplication, 18,204 titles and abstracts were screened, 367 were selected for full-text review and 23 studies were included. There was high-strength evidence that ethnic minority groups, increasing number of comorbidities, neuropsychiatric symptoms, previous hospital transfers, and rural living were positively associated with ED attendance, whereas higher socioeconomic position, being unmarried, and living in a care home were negatively associated with ED attendance. There was moderate-strength evidence that being a woman and receiving palliative care were negatively associated with ED attendance. There was only low-strength evidence for factors associated with repeat ED attendance. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The review highlights characteristics that could help identify patients at risk of ED attendance near the end of life and potential service-related factors to reduce risks. Better understanding of the mechanisms by which residential facilities and palliative care are associated with reduced ED attendance is needed.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".