Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Improving outcomes for older people in the emergency department: a review of reviews.
Preston, Louise; van Oppen, James David; Conroy, Simon Paul; Ablard, Suzanne; Buckley Woods, Helen; Mason, Suzanne M.
Afiliação
  • Preston L; School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK l.r.preston@sheffield.ac.uk.
  • van Oppen JD; Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
  • Conroy SP; Emergency Department, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
  • Ablard S; Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
  • Buckley Woods H; School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
  • Mason SM; Information School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Emerg Med J ; 38(12): 882-888, 2021 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33106287
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

There has been a recognised trend of increasing use of emergency and urgent care and emergency departments (EDs) by older people, which is marked by a substantial evidence base reporting interventions for this population and guidance from key organisations. Despite this, outcomes for this population remain suboptimal. A plethora of reviews in this area provides challenges for clinicians and commissioners in determining which interventions and models of care best meet people's needs. The aim of this review was to identify effective ED interventions which have been reported for older people, and to provide a clear summary of the myriad reviews and numerous intervention types in this area.

METHODS:

A review of reviews, reporting interventions for older people, either initiated or wholly delivered within the ED.

RESULTS:

A total of 15 review articles describing 83 primary studies met our content and reporting standards criteria. The majority (n=13) were systematic reviews (four using meta-analysis.) Across the reviews, 26 different outcomes were reported with inconsistency. Follow-up duration varied within and across the reviews. Based on how authors had reported results, evidence clusters were developed (1) staff-focused reviews, (2) discharge intervention reviews, (3) population-focused reviews and (4) intervention component reviews.

CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence base describing interventions is weak due to inconsistent reporting, differing emphasis placed on the key characteristics of primary studies (staff, location and outcome) by review authors and varying quality of reviews. No individual interventions have been found to be more promising, but interventions initiated in the ED and continued into other settings have tended to result in more favourable patient and health service outcomes. Despite many interventions reported within the reviews being holistic and patient focused, outcomes measured were largely service focused. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO CRD42018111461.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article