Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34761369›Full record

ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2022

Experiences and perspectives of older patients with a return visit to the emergency department within 30 days: patient journey mapping.

Bo Schouten, Babiche E J M Driesen, Hanneke Merten, Brigitte H C M Burger, Mariëlle G Hartjes, Prabath W B Nanayakkara, Cordula Wagner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European geriatric medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bo Schouten *Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, P/O Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.schouten1@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6387-7633
Babiche E J M Driesen *Department of Emergency Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke MertenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, P/O Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brigitte H C M BurgerSection General and Acute Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mariëlle G HartjesSection General and Acute Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Prabath W B NanayakkaraSection General and Acute Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cordula WagnerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, P/O Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUp to 22% of older patients who visit the emergency department (ED) have a return visit within 30 days. To achieve patient-centered care for this group at the ED it is important to involve the patient perspective and strive to provide the best possible experience. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of older patients from initial to return ED visit by mapping their patient journey.

methodsWe performed a qualitative patient journey study with 13 patients of 70 years and older with a return ED visit within 30 days who presented at the Amsterdam UMC, a Dutch academic hospital. We used semi-structured interviews focusing on the patient experience during their journey and developed a conceptual framework for coding.

resultsOur sample consisted of 13 older patients with an average age of 80 years, and 62% of them were males. The framework contained a timeline of the patient journey with five chronological main themes, complemented with an 'experience' theme, these were divided into 34 subthemes. Health status, social system, contact with the general practitioner, aftercare, discharge and expectations were the five main themes. The experiences regarding these themes differed greatly between patients. The two most prominent subthemes were waiting time and discharge communication, which were mostly related to a negative experience.

conclusionsThis study provides insight into the experiences and perspectives of older patients from initial to return ED visit. The two major findings were that lack of clarity regarding waiting times and suboptimal discharge communication contributed to negative experiences. Recommendations regarding waiting time (i.e. a two-hour time out at the ED), and discharge communication (i.e. checklist for discharge) could contribute to a positive ED experience and thereby potentially improve patient-centered care.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient DischargeAftercareAged, 80 and overFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchEmergency/acute medicineOlder patients/agedPatient-centered carePatient journey mappingPatient perspective

Identifiers

PMID34761369
PMCPMC9018642
OpenAlexW3213025554

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.