Emergency Department Communication in Persons Living With Dementia and Care Partners: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize published research exploring emergency department (ED) communication strategies and decision-making with persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners as the basis for a multistakeholder consensus conference to prioritize future research. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: PLWD and their care partners in the ED setting. METHODS: Informed by 2 Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic electronic searches of medical research databases for relevant publications following standardized methodological guidelines. The results were presented to interdisciplinary stakeholders, including dementia researchers, clinicians, PLWD, care partners, and advocacy organizations. The PICO questions included: How does communication differ for PLWD compared with persons without dementia? Are there specific communication strategies that improve the outcomes of ED care? Future research areas were prioritized. RESULTS: From 5451 studies identified for PICO-1, 21 were abstracted. From 2687 studies identified for PICO-2, 3 were abstracted. None of the included studies directly evaluated communication differences between PLWD and other populations, nor the effectiveness of specific communication strategies. General themes emerging from the scoping review included perceptions by PLWD/care partners of rushed ED communication, often exacerbated by inconsistent messages between providers. Care partners consistently reported limited engagement in medical decision-making. In order, the research priorities identified included: (1) Barriers/facilitators of effective communication; (2) valid outcome measures of effective communication; (3) best practices for care partner engagement; (4) defining how individual-, provider-, and system-level factors influence communication; and (5) understanding how each member of ED team can ensure high-quality communication. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Research exploring ED communication with PLWD is sparse and does not directly evaluate specific communication strategies. Defining barriers and facilitators of effective communication was the highest-ranked research priority, followed by validating outcome measures associated with improved information exchange.

The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) network approach: a protocol to advance stakeholder consensus and research priorities in geriatrics and dementia care in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly, older adults are turning to emergency departments (EDs) to address healthcare needs. To achieve these research demands, infrastructure is needed to both generate evidence of intervention impact and advance the development of implementation science, pragmatic trials evaluation and dissemination of findings from studies addressing the emergency care needs of older adults. The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (https://gearnetwork.org) has been created in response to these scientific needs-to build a transdisciplinary infrastructure to support the research that will optimise emergency care for older adults and persons living with dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this paper, we describe our approach to developing the GEAR Network infrastructure, the scoping reviews to identify research and clinical gaps and its use of consensus-driven research priorities with a transdisciplinary taskforce of stakeholders that includes patients and care partners. We describe how priority topic areas are ascertained, the process of conducting scoping reviews with integrated academic librarians performing standardised searches and providing quality control on reviews, input and support from the taskforce and conducting a large-scale consensus workshop to prioritise future research topics. The GEAR Network approach provides a framework and systematic approach to develop a research agenda and support research in geriatric emergency care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a systematic review of previously conducted research; accordingly, it does not constitute human subjects research needing ethics review. These reviews will be prepared as manuscripts and submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals, and the results will be presented at conferences.Open Science Framework registered DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6QRYX, 10.17605/OSF.IO/AKVZ8, 10.17605/OSF.IO/EPVR5, 10.17605/OSF.IO/VXPRS.