| 1. |
- Crilly, Julia, et al.
(författare)
-
Research priority setting in emergency care : A scoping review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American college of emergency physicians open. - : Wiley. - 2688-1152. ; 3:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Priority areas for emergency care research are emerging and becoming ever more important. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of published emergency care priority-setting studies by collating and comparing priority-setting methodology and (2) describe the resulting research priorities identified. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework was used. Inclusion criteria were peer-review articles available in English, published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019 and used 2 or more search terms. Five databases (Scopus, AustHealth, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE) were searched. REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence of included articles. Results: Forty-five studies were included. Fourteen themes for emergency care research were considered within 3 overarching research domains: emergency populations (pediatrics, geriatrics), emergency care workforce and processes (nursing, shared decision making, general workforce, and process), and emergency care clinical areas (imaging, falls, pain management, trauma care, substance misuse, infectious diseases, mental health, cardiology, general clinical care). Variation in the reporting of research priority areas was evident. Priority areas to drive the global agenda for emergency care research are limited given the country and professional group-specific context of existing studies. Conclusion: This comprehensive summary of generated research priorities across emergency care provides insight into current and future research agendas. With the nature of emergency care being inherently broad, future priorities may warrant population (eg, children, geriatrics) or subspecialty (eg, trauma, toxicology, mental health) focus and be derived using a rigorous framework and patient engagement.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hörlin, Erika, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
Inter-rater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale by staff members in a Swedish emergency department setting
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Academic Emergency Medicine. - : Wiley. - 1069-6563 .- 1553-2712. ; 29:12, s. 1431-1437
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction As frailty among the elderly is receiving increasing attention in emergency departments (EDs) around the world, the use of frailty assessment tools is growing. An often used such tool is the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), whose inter-rater reliability has been sparingly investigated in ED settings. No inter-rater reliability study regarding CFS has previously been performed within the Scandinavian ED context. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the CFS in a Swedish ED setting. Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted at three Swedish EDs. Patients >= 65 years were independently assessed with CFS by their responsible physician, registered nurse, and assistant nurse. Demographic information for each assessor was collected, along with frailty status (frail/not frail) on the basis of clinical judgment. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), whereas agreement of frailty assessed by CFS (dichotomized between frail/not frail, cutoff at >= 5 points) versus solely by clinical judgment was calculated by using cross-tabulation. Results One-hundred patients were included. We found inter-rater reliability to be moderate to good (ICC 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.84), regardless of whether the care team included an emergency physician (ICC 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.83) or an intern/resident from another specialty (ICC 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.89). The agreement of clinically judged frailty compared to frailty according to CFS was 84%. In the opposing cases, staff tended to assess patients as frail to a higher extent using clinical judgment than by applying CFS on the same patient. Conclusions The CFS appears to have a moderate to good inter-rater reliability when used in a clinical ED setting. When guiding clinical decisions, we advise that the CFS score should be discussed within the team. Further research needs to be performed on the accuracy of clinical judgment to identify frailty in ED patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hörlin, Erika, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
Is the clinical frailty scale feasible to use in an emergency department setting? A mixed methods study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMC Emergency Medicine. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-227X. ; 23:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool used to identify frailty in older patients visitingthe emergency department (ED). However, the current understanding of how it is used and accepted in ED clinicalpractice is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of CFS in an ED setting.Methods :This was a prospective, mixed methods study conducted in three Swedish EDs where CFS had recentlybeen introduced. We examined the completion rate of CFS assessments in relation to patient- and organisationalfactors. A survey on staff experience of using CFS was also conducted. All quantitative data were analyseddescriptively, while free text comments underwent a qualitative content analysis.Results: A total of 4235 visits were analysed, and CFS assessments were performed in 47%. The completion rate exceeded 50% for patients over the age of 80. Patients with low triage priority were assessed to a low degree (24%). There was a diurnal variation with the highest completion rates seen for arrivals between 6 and 12 a.m. (58%). The survey response rate was 48%. The respondents rated the perceived relevance and the ease of use of the CFS with a median of 5 (IQR 2) on a scale with 7 being the highest. High workload, forgetfulness and critical illness were rankedas the top three barriers to assessment. The qualitative analysis showed that CFS assessments benefit from a clearroutine and a sense of apparent relevance to emergency care.Conclusion: Most emergency staff perceived CFS as relevant and easy to use, yet far from all older ED patientswere assessed. The most common barrier to assessment was high workload. Measures to facilitate use may includeclarifying the purpose of the assessment with explicit follow-up actions, as well as formulating a clear routine for the assessment.Registration: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 2021-06-18 (identifier: NCT04931472).
|
|
