Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28302066›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2017

Geriatric support in the emergency department: a national survey in Belgium.

Els Devriendt, Isabelle De Brauwer, Lies Vandersaenen, Pieter Heeren, Simon Conroy, Benoit Boland, Johan Flamaing, Marc Sabbe, Koen Milisen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison of Frailty Screening Instruments in the Emergency Department.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Els DevriendtDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabelle De BrauwerDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, av Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Lies VandersaenenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Pieter HeerenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Simon ConroyGeriatric Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.
Benoit BolandDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, av Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Johan FlamaingDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Marc SabbeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Koen MilisenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. koen.milisen@med.kuleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder people in the emergency department (ED) represent a growing population and increasing proportion of the workload in the ED. This study investigated the support for frail older people in the ED, by exploring the collaboration between the geriatric services (GS) and the EDs in Belgian hospitals.

methodsAn electronic cross-sectional survey in all Belgian hospitals with an ED (n = 100) about care aspects, collaboration, education and infrastructure for older patients in the ED was collected. Descriptive analyses were performed at national level.

resultsForty-nine of 100 surveys were completed by the GS. The heads of the ED returned only 12 incomplete questionnaires and these results are therefore not reported. Twenty-six of the 49 heads of GSs (53%) indicated that there was an agreement, mainly informal, between the geriatric and the emergency department concerning the management of older people on the ED. A geriatrician was available for specific problems, by phone or in person, in 96% of the EDs during daytime on weekdays. Almost all responding hospitals (96%) had an inpatient geriatric consultation team, of which 85% was available for specific problems at the ED, by phone or bedside during the daytime on weekdays. Twenty-nine heads of the GSs (59%) reported that older patients were screened at ED admission during the day to identify 'at risk' patients. The results of the screening were used in the context of further treatment (76%), to decide on hospital admission (27%), or to justify admission on a geriatric ward (55%). In the year preceding the survey, 25% of the responding hospitals had organised geriatric training for ED healthcare workers. Thirty-four heads of the GS (69%) felt that the infrastructure of the ED was insufficient to give high-quality care for older persons.

conclusionCollaborations between EDs and GS are emerging in Belgium, but are currently rather limited and not yet sufficiently embedded in the ED care. Exploratory studies are necessary to identify how these collaborations can be improved.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalIntersectoral CollaborationAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHospitalizationHumansMaleNeeds AssessmentQuality ImprovementSocial SupportEmergency departmentGeriatric patientsGeriatric supportSurvey

Identifiers

PMID28302066
PMCPMC5356306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.