Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baraff et al 1992 US | Five focus groups (each having five to 13 members, aged 65 or older who had received ED care in the past year) | Qualitative study – Focus group interviews on elderly patients’ experiences during their visits to the ED with moderators asking open-ended questions pertaining to selected aspects of ED visit experience | Staff Interactions | Negative comments centered on the process of communication of staff with patients | The focus groups were formed based on patients’ geographical limitations; most lived in care homes. Some of the visits to the ED were not recent. |
ED Environment | Emergency departments were too cold and were not offered blankets | ||||
Waiting Period | Participants reported that they spent a considerable amount of time in the ED, much of it waiting for care. However they understood as this was an unscheduled visit and that more critically ill patients are treated first | ||||
Transportation | Trouble with transportation if they were not escorted. | ||||
Watson et al 1999 US | 12 patients, aged 66 or older, who presented with conditions requiring immediate care, discharged within 2 hours of their ED arrival | Qualitative descriptive study – interviews on elderly patients’ experiences during their visits to the ED | Needs for information | Elderly patients want to be informed about their condition and the entire process of their care | Small sample size. Single center. |
Waiting period | Majority felt the waiting time were too long. They wished to be informed about the reason they are waiting | ||||
Perceptions of professional competence and caring service | 25% of them felt humour is an important component during communication to create a better rapport | ||||
Nerney et al 2001 US | 778 patients, aged 65 or older, who completed questionnaires during their presentation to an inner-city ED. | Prospective Survey of older patients attending the ED– included questions on demographic characteristics, medical history, health related quality of life and a follow up satisfaction survey | Overall rating of ED care on a 5-point Likert scale of “excellent”, “very good”, “good”, “fair”, or “poor | 40% “Excellent” 30% “Very good” 2% “Poor” | Single center. Many refused the questionnaires – potential selection bias |
Kihlgren et al 2004 Sweeden | 20 patients, aged 75 years or over who presented to the ED – observed and interviewed | Prospective Qualitative study – Observation followed by interview. Observation focused on care given, accompanying relatives and the environment. Interviews were on older patients’ experiences in the ED, using open-ended questions. | ED Settings | Participants felt there was a lack of privacy, and the beds were very hard and uncomfortable. | Small sample size. |
Waiting Period | They felt abandoned during the waiting period and worried if the staffs had forgotten them. They also felt the waiting times were too long and they were not informed of the anticipated duration of the waiting times. They were afraid to leave the examination/waiting room to look for a toilet or a telephone as the doctor might come. | ||||
Richardson et al 2007 New Zealand | 82 patients, aged 80 years or over who presented to emergency departments and were likely to be admitted to one of the designated medical wards | Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods, including an audit and interview Audit focused on assessing area workload and acuity in particular nursing-to-patient ratio at particular time and area Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions on the admission, transfer and discharge experience of patients | Admission Process | Patients felt they were under informed regarding their admission, but they also appeared unconcerned about this. | Limited to patients that are admitted to specific medical wards. |
Waiting Period | Despite long waiting times, the majority of patients showed acceptance of the situation and a rationalization of relative “need” which led to acquiescence | ||||
Considine et al 2010 Australia | 27 patients, aged 65 years or over, from 3 EDs | Prospective qualitative study – Observations and Interviews with patients or their carers on their experience of care provided in the ED | Waiting Period | Some felt the waiting times were too long, especially the time spent on the ambulance trolley Others felt the wait was warranted as there were other patients who were more unwell | Small sample size. Interviews took into account current visits as well as previous visits to the ED |
Olofsson et al 2012 Sweeden | 14 patients, aged 70 years or over who had visited ED more than three times in the past 12 months | Qualitative study - interviews using open-ended questions focusing on older patients’ experiences in the ED | General experience | Sincere interest from the nurse during triage contributed to a respectful relationship A perceived lack of interest in patients contributed to frustration and disappointments | Small sample size. Questions asked were too general. No specific area of experience were examined. |