ArticleJournal of emergency nursing2025
Emergency Nurses' Perspectives on Adopting Geriatric Screenings for Cognitive Impairment: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of emergency nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of interventions for persons living with dementia: The Geriatric ED Guidelines 2.0.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Dementia Screening in the Emergency Department: A Communication-Centered Process.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Delirium in older adults in the emergency department: a scoping review of current research and identified knowledge gaps.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- NOTICE-ED: Nurse or Technician Insights Into Cognitive Evaluations in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCognitive impairment in older adults is underrecognized in emergency departments. Despite emergency nurses' central role in facilitating ED screening for clinical and social needs, little is known about their perspectives on implementing delirium and dementia screenings. Nurses can provide insights to promote the uptake of these screenings.
methodsUsing a case study approach, we conducted qualitative interviews with emergency nurses at a public safety net hospital about their perspectives on implementing screening for delirium and dementia. Interview topics were derived from an implementation science framework (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). We performed a combined deductive-inductive analysis.
resultsEleven nurses participated in interviews. Four overarching themes were identified. Emergency nurses viewed safety as the core function of screening. Emergency nurses identified adequate staffing, private care spaces, and electronic medical record support as important resources required to support screening implementation. Nurses perceived benefits of screening ED patients for cognitive impairment specifically related to hazards of ED boarding. However, they simultaneously found screenings complex and incompatible with their workflows and available health system resources. DISCUSSION: Emergency nurses conceptualize screenings in terms of patient safety, which may be the best way to frame initiatives to implement screenings for cognitive impairment. In light of ED crowding and boarding's impacts on patient safety, nurses highlighted screening for cognitive impairment as increasingly relevant. However, they found current working conditions of delivering patient care in waiting rooms and hallways not conducive to implementing screenings. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework helped identify workflow limitations that are barriers to ED screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.