Care for older adults living with dementia in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of care partner roles and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Care partners play a vital role in supporting persons living with dementia (PLWD) in using medical services. We conducted a meta-synthesis to explore care partner perspectives of ED care for PLWD, as well as healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions of care partner roles within the ED, to identify care gaps and facilitators across the ED continuum. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase databases were searched from inception to 8 May 2023. Grey literature was also searched. Articles were included if they reported on care partner roles or experiences regarding care delivery for PLWD in the ED, either from the perspective of care partners or HCPs. A charting exercise was used to categorise the primary focus and outcomes of the articles selected for inclusion. A second charting exercise was used to derive overarching themes based on care partner roles in ED care for PLWD, and care partner perspectives surrounding barriers and facilitators to care. RESULTS: 16 articles were included. Important barriers and facilitators to care for PLWD were identified and organised according to the timepoint of the visit (pre-ED, during a visit and post-ED). Key care gaps and barriers to care included: gaps in primary care access and care planning, ED environment and organisational processes, deficits in communication regarding patient care, lack of care partner involvement in clinical decisions, and difficulties with discharge transitions and follow-up care. Key facilitators to care included: clinical information provided by care partners, care coordination, and care partner support and engagement. CONCLUSION: These findings can aid in developing dementia-friendly EDs by informing policy and practices, as well as environmental modifications. Future studies should focus on the feasibility and effectiveness of interventions targeted towards EDs and primary care settings. Engagement of care partners in these intervention studies will be critical to their success.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".