Advance directives in the emergency department–a systematic review of the status quo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Providing individualised healthcare in line with patient wishes is a particular challenge for emergency healthcare professionals. Documentation of patient wishes (DPW), e.g. as advance directives, can guide clinicians in making end-of-life decisions that respect the patient’s wishes and autonomy. However, patient centered decisions are hindered by limited availability of DPWs in emergency settings. Objective This systematic review aims to congregate present data on recorded rates for DPW existence and availability in the emergency department (ED) as well as contributing factors for these rates. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Embase and Web of Science databases in September 2023. Publications providing primary quantitative data on DPW in the ED were assessed. Publications referring only to a subset of ED patients (other than geriatric) and investigating DPW issued after admission were excluded. Results A total of 22 studies from 1996 to 2021 were included in the analysis. Most were from the US (n = 12), followed by Australia (n = 4), Canada (n = 2), South Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland (n = 1 each). In the general adult population presenting to the ED, 19.9–27.8% of patients reported having some form of DPW, but only in 6.8% or less it was available on presentation. In the geriatric population, DPW rates (2.6–79%) as well as their availability (1.1–48.8%) varied widely. The following variables were identified as positive predictors of having DPW, among others: higher age, poorer overall health, as well as sociodemographic factors, such as female gender, having children, being in a relationship, higher level of education or a recent previous presentation to hospital. Conclusions Existence and availability of a recorded DPW among ED patients was low in general and even in geriatric populations mostly well below 50%. While we were able to gather data on prevalence and predictors, this was limited by heterogeneous data. We believe further research is needed to explore the quality of DPW and measures to increase both rates of existence and availability of DPW in the ED.
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 | 0.014 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".