Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33446116›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Life-sustaining treatment preferences in older patients when referred to the emergency department for acute geriatric assessment: a descriptive study in a Dutch hospital.

Daisy J M Ermers, Marit P H van Beuningen-van Wijk, Evi Peters Rit, Sonja C Stalpers-Konijnenburg, Diana G Taekema, Frank H Bosch, Yvonne Engels, Patricia J W B van Mierlo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The severely injured older patient: identifying patients at high risk for mortality using the Dutch National Trauma Registry.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Daisy J M Ermers *Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, HB, 6500, The Netherlands. daisy.ermers@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1985-2839
Marit P H van Beuningen-van Wijk *Department of Pulmonology, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Evi Peters RitDepartment of Geriatrics, Meander medical center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Sonja C Stalpers-KonijnenburgDepartment of Geriatrics, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Diana G TaekemaDepartment of Geriatrics, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Frank H BoschDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Yvonne EngelsDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, HB, 6500, The Netherlands.
Patricia J W B van MierloDepartment of Geriatrics, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many cases, life-sustaining treatment preferences are not timely discussed with older patients. Advance care planning (ACP) offers medical professionals an opportunity to discuss patients' preferences. We assessed how often these preferences were known when older patients were referred to the emergency department (ED) for an acute geriatric assessment.

methodsWe conducted a descriptive study on patients referred to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment in a Dutch hospital. Patients were referred by general practitioners (GPs), or in the case of nursing home residents, by elderly care physicians. The referring physician was asked if preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments were known. The primary outcome was the number of patients for whom preferences were known. Secondary outcomes included which preferences, and which variables predict known preferences.

resultsBetween 2015 and 2017, 348 patients were included in our study. At least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at referral in 45.4% (158/348) cases. In these cases, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) policy was always included. Preferences regarding invasive ventilation policy and ICU admission were known in 17% (59/348) and 10.3% (36/348) of the cases respectively. Known preferences were more frequent in cases referred by the elderly care physician than the GP (P < 0.001).

conclusionsIn less than half the patients, at least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at the time of referral to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment; in most cases it concerned CPR policy. We recommend optimizing ACP conversations in a non-acute setting to provide more appropriate, desired, and personalized care to older patients referred to the ED.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAgedEmergency Service, HospitalHospitalsHumansPatient PreferenceReferral and ConsultationAdvance care planningEmergency departmentGeriatric assessmentPalliative carePreferences regarding life-sustaining treatmentReferral

Identifiers

PMID33446116
PMCPMC7807792

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.