MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416850383 · doi:10.1186/s12245-026-01219-9

Enhancing Emergency Department Experiences for Older Adults: A Rapid Review (2020-2025)

2025· article· en· W4416850383 on OpenAlexaff
Jae‐Yung Kwon, Mariko Sakamoto, Kayoung Lee, Alyssa DeMedeiros, Kira Gossack‐Keenan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEmergency departmentIntervention (counseling)Inclusion (mineral)Aged carePerceptionMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Older adults (65+) account for nearly a quarter of all emergency department (ED) visits, yet consistently report challenges in care experiences, including communication gaps, long wait times, and a lack of age-appropriate services. This systematic rapid review synthesizes recent evidence on ED interventions that improved older adults’ care experiences. METHODS: We conducted the review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and AgeLine were searched (January 2020-July 2025). Eligible studies examined ED-based interventions for older adults ≥ 65 years and reported patient experience outcomes. Three reviewers independently screened, extracted, and appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized thematically across intervention domains. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria (i.e., 5 quantitative, 2 mixed-methods, and 3 qualitative). Interventions included multidisciplinary geriatric teams, frailty-specific pathways, redesigned discharge tools, comfort carts, assistive devices, advance care planning, and elder mistreatment screening. Interventions improved satisfaction, dignity, independence, and perceptions of care quality across four countries (Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United States of America). Frailty-focused programs and trauma-informed screening were broadly acceptable when framed respectfully. Structured communication redesigns and environmental modifications enhanced patient trust and comfort. Common limitations included small samples and single-site designs. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding geriatric expertise, structured communication, environmental supports, and trauma-informed practices improves older adults’ perceptions of ED experiences. Future research should prioritize multi-site evaluations, cost-effectiveness, and integration of patient-reported experience measures into routine monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207