ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2025
NOTICE-ED: Nurse or Technician Insights Into Cognitive Evaluations in the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
backgroundSeveral strategies have been proposed to increase chronic cognitive impairment (CI) screening in the emergency department (ED). Our goal was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing specific CI screening tools and strategies in the ED from an ED registered nurse and technician perspective.
methodsWe performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of ED nurses and ED technicians (EDTs). Participants worked at an urban academic hospital and were interviewed between November 2023 and March 2024. Interviews assessed participants' opinions on the feasibility and acceptability of CI screening and the use of machine learning (ML) tools to identify high-risk patients for targeted CI screening, tablet-based screenings, and two validated CI screenings: the Ottawa 3DY (O3DY) and Short Blessed Test (SBT). We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to develop our interview guide and performed a rapid analysis with deductive and inductive codes based on CFIR constructs.
resultsFour major themes related to CI screening tools arose: (1) Benefits of CI screening; (2) feasibility of integrating screening tools into existing workflows; (3) professional role limitations; and (4) implementation requirements. Participants perceived CI screening as important for allocating limited ED resources. Shorter, less specific testing, including the O3DY, was seen as feasible during triage, while longer, more specific screening, including the SBT, was seen as more feasible in roomed care areas. Both ED nurses and EDTs identified the need for electronic health record tools and dedicated screening teams to facilitate implementation.
conclusionED nurses and EDTs support chronic CI screening if screening techniques and clinical teams can be optimized to make workflows feasible.
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.