"I know you didn't want to stay": emergency department conversations about disposition for people living with dementia.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Justine Seidenfeld, Matthew Tucker, Melissa Harris-Gersten, Gemmae M Fix, Nina R Sperber, Susan N Hastings
{"title":"\"I know you didn't want to stay\": emergency department conversations about disposition for people living with dementia.","authors":"Justine Seidenfeld, Matthew Tucker, Melissa Harris-Gersten, Gemmae M Fix, Nina R Sperber, Susan N Hastings","doi":"10.1093/geront/gnaf184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>When people living with dementia present to the emergency department (ED), the disposition decision-to admit them to the hospital or discharge them home-can be difficult for providers. However, little is known about current real-world practices in disposition conversations.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This ethnographic study used direct observations of ED encounters with people living with dementia, their care partners, and ED providers at a Veteran Affairs facility in the Southeast United States. Follow-up interviews were conducted with patients and care partners. Interview guides and code book were informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected over 45 days, with 20 ED encounters, 18 follow-up interviews, and baseline surveys obtained. For the 20 Veteran participants living with dementia, all were male, mean age was 79.4, and 50% were Black or African American. Major themes included: (1) Disposition conversations had significant variation in depth and content, (2) patient and care partner participation varied with disposition, and (3) satisfaction was driven by alignment of disposition preferences.</p><p><strong>Discussion and implications: </strong>Our study suggests that there are no consistent formats of disposition conversations for people living with dementia. Improving quality may be most needed when preferences are misaligned, and this should be identified early in the encounter.</p>","PeriodicalId":51347,"journal":{"name":"Gerontologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaf184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: When people living with dementia present to the emergency department (ED), the disposition decision-to admit them to the hospital or discharge them home-can be difficult for providers. However, little is known about current real-world practices in disposition conversations.

Research design and methods: This ethnographic study used direct observations of ED encounters with people living with dementia, their care partners, and ED providers at a Veteran Affairs facility in the Southeast United States. Follow-up interviews were conducted with patients and care partners. Interview guides and code book were informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method.

Results: Data were collected over 45 days, with 20 ED encounters, 18 follow-up interviews, and baseline surveys obtained. For the 20 Veteran participants living with dementia, all were male, mean age was 79.4, and 50% were Black or African American. Major themes included: (1) Disposition conversations had significant variation in depth and content, (2) patient and care partner participation varied with disposition, and (3) satisfaction was driven by alignment of disposition preferences.

Discussion and implications: Our study suggests that there are no consistent formats of disposition conversations for people living with dementia. Improving quality may be most needed when preferences are misaligned, and this should be identified early in the encounter.

“我知道你不想留下来”:关于痴呆症患者处置的急诊科对话。
背景和目的:当痴呆症患者出现在急诊科(ED)时,处置决定-让他们住院或出院-对提供者来说可能很困难。然而,我们对现实世界中性格对话的实践知之甚少。研究设计和方法:这项民族志研究直接观察了在美国东南部退伍军人事务部(VA)与痴呆症患者、他们的护理伙伴和ED提供者的ED接触。对患者和护理伙伴进行了随访访谈。面试指南和代码书由渥太华决策支持框架提供。数据分析采用恒定比较法。结果:在45天内收集了数据,包括20次ED就诊,18次随访访谈和基线调查。20名患有痴呆症的退伍军人参与者均为男性,平均年龄为79.4岁,50%是黑人或非裔美国人。主要的主题包括:(1)意向对话在深度和内容上有显著差异;(2)患者和护理伙伴的参与随意向而变化;(3)满意度受意向偏好的一致性驱动。讨论和启示:我们的研究表明,痴呆患者没有一致的性格对话形式。当偏好不一致时,提高质量可能是最需要的,这应该在遇到的早期识别出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gerontologist
Gerontologist GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
8.80%
发文量
171
期刊介绍: The Gerontologist, published since 1961, is a bimonthly journal of The Gerontological Society of America that provides a multidisciplinary perspective on human aging by publishing research and analysis on applied social issues. It informs the broad community of disciplines and professions involved in understanding the aging process and providing care to older people. Articles should include a conceptual framework and testable hypotheses. Implications for policy or practice should be highlighted. The Gerontologist publishes quantitative and qualitative research and encourages manuscript submissions of various types including: research articles, intervention research, review articles, measurement articles, forums, and brief reports. Book and media reviews, International Spotlights, and award-winning lectures are commissioned by the editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信