Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577791›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2018

The decision-making process for unplanned admission to hospital unveiled in hospitalised older adults: a qualitative study.

Maria Johanna van der Kluit, Geke J Dijkstra, Sophia E de Rooij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The dialogue as decision support; lived experiences of extended collaboration when an ambulance is called.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2021
    Article
  7. The needs of older patients in hospital care: a scoping review.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021
    Article
  8. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Clinical Outcomes in the Older People at the Emergency Department.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Maria Johanna van der KluitUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.j.van.der.kluit@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8758-232X
Geke J DijkstraUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Applied Health Research, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sophia E de RooijUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe hazards of hospitalisation, and the growing demand for goal-oriented care and shared decision making, increasingly question whether hospitalisation always aligns with the preferences and needs of older adults. Although decision models are described comprehensively in the literature, little is understood about how the decision for hospitalisation is made in real life situations, especially under acute conditions. The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into how the decision to hospitalise was made from the perspective of the older patient who was unplanned admitted to hospital.

methodsOpen interviews were conducted with 21 older hospitalised patients and/or their next of kin about the decision-making process leading to hospitalisation. Data were analysed according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach.

resultsAlthough a period of complaints preceded the decision to unplanned hospitalisation, ranging from hours to years, the decision to hospitalise was always taken acutely. In all cases, there was an acute moment in which the home as a care environment was no longer considered adequate. This conclusion was based on a combination of factors including factors related to complaints, general practitioner and home environment. Three parties were involved in this assessment: the patient, his next of kin and the general practitioner. At the same time, a very positive value was attributed towards the hospital. Depending on the assessment of the home as care environment by the various parties, there were four routes to hospitalisation: referral, shared, demanding and bypassing.

conclusionsFor all participants, the decision to hospitalisation was taken acutely, even if the problems evoking admission were not acute, but present for a longer period. Participants saw admission as inevitable, due to the negative perceptions of the care environment at home at that moment, combined with the positive expectations of hospital care. Advance care planning, nor shared decision making were rarely seen in these interviews. An ethical dilemma occurred when the next of kin consented to hospitalisation against the wishes of the patient. More attention for participation of older adults in decision making and their goals is recommended.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHospitalizationAdvance Care PlanningAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationDecision makingGrounded theoryHospitalisationOlder adultsPatient perspectivePrimary careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30577791
PMCPMC6303984

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.