Ellen Burkett1,2, Melinda G Martin-Khan3,4, Leonard C Gray1,3,4. 1. Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. Centre for Online Health, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the methodological quality of existing quality indicators (QIs) for the emergency department (ED) care of older persons. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and grey literature were searched. Articles were included if they addressed ED care of persons aged ≥65 years and defined a QI amenable to influence by ED providers. The methodological quality of QIs was assessed using relevant items from the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation and the QUALIFY tools. RESULTS: Sixty-one articles were included in the review, with identification of 50 QIs meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Thirty-six of fifty ED QIs for older persons were process indicators. The appraisal instruments' total ratings ranged from 39 to 67%, with only 18 QIs scoring 50% or more for all five domains. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a balanced, methodologically robust set of QIs for care of older persons in the ED.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the methodological quality of existing quality indicators (QIs) for the emergency department (ED) care of older persons. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and grey literature were searched. Articles were included if they addressed ED care of persons aged ≥65 years and defined a QI amenable to influence by ED providers. The methodological quality of QIs was assessed using relevant items from the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation and the QUALIFY tools. RESULTS: Sixty-one articles were included in the review, with identification of 50 QIs meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Thirty-six of fifty ED QIs for older persons were process indicators. The appraisal instruments' total ratings ranged from 39 to 67%, with only 18 QIs scoring 50% or more for all five domains. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a balanced, methodologically robust set of QIs for care of older persons in the ED.
Authors: Lauren T Southerland; Alexander X Lo; Kevin Biese; Glenn Arendts; Jay Banerjee; Ula Hwang; Scott Dresden; Vivian Argento; Maura Kennedy; Christina L Shenvi; Christopher R Carpenter Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Joyce Siette; Mikaela L Jorgensen; Andrew Georgiou; Laura Dodds; Tom McClean; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 3.921