Observational studyAge and ageing2025
Assessing what matters most in older emergency department patients.
Observational study in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How human and animal frailty index studies can inform each other: a brief narrative review.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Review
- Adapting the Geriatric Medicine 5Ms Framework to Geriatric Dermatology.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder emergency patients have complex health needs and diverse personal priorities not captured by traditional single-disease approaches. Asking 'what matters most' may facilitate a more patient-centred approach. However, conceptual frameworks to document patient values have neither been implemented nor operationalised for use in the emergency department (ED).
objectiveTo investigate the feasibility of asking 'what matters most' in the ED, assess patient priorities and determine the utility of a conceptual framework for documenting these.
methodsProspective, observational study in a Swiss ED with consecutive patients aged ≥65 years. Feasibility was determined as proportion of included patients to eligible patients. Patient responses were categorised using a conceptual framework consisting of 8 domains: principles, relationships, emotions, activities, abilities, possessions, medical and others. Framework evaluation included interrater reliability (IRR), time-to-abstraction rate and a questionnaire assessing utility of the framework.
resultsAsking what 'matters most' was feasible, including 1349 of 1625 patients (83.0%). Regarding categories of the conceptual framework, 504 patients (37.4%) reported medical issues, 297 (22.0%) relationships, 268 (19.9%) abilities and 154 (11.4%) emotions as their priority. Patients aged ≥85 years or having frailty more frequently prioritised abilities and emotions, whereas patients 65-84 years or without frailty prioritised medical issues. The framework showed substantial IRR (κ = 0.668), good time-to-abstraction rates and high ratings in the utility questionnaire.
conclusionsAsking older people 'what matters most' is feasible and potentially useful in the ED setting. Applying a conceptual framework enables systematic documentation and may support patient-centred and holistic emergency care.
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.