Adherence to guideline creation recommendations for suicide prevention in the emergency department: A systematic review

Wilson, Michael P.; Kaur, Jaskiran; Blake, Lindsay; Oliveto, Alison; Thompson, Ronald G.; Pyne, Jeffrey M.; Wolf, Lisa; Walker, Alexandra; Waliski, Angela D.; Nordstrom, Kimberly

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2021.07.042

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33 The identified QIs in the special populations (ie, geriatric, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric) category focused on the use of valid tools for identifying patients at risk for suicide (across all populations), abuse (across all special populations), and geriatric falls as well as documentation specifically of pregnancy status. The challenges of developing tools that are valid for use in emergency care settings are well documented for patients with suicidal ideation, [34][35][36][37] adult and geriatric falls, [38][39][40] intimate partner violence, and child and elder abuse. [41][42][43] Equally challenging is the lack of evidence to support their use, 44 suggesting that further research is necessary and calling into question the usefulness of screening as a current measure of quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Nurse-Sensitive, Emergency Department–Specific Quality Indicators Using a Modified Delphi Technique

Wolf

Delao

Perhats

et al. 2022

Journal of Nursing Care Quality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is no identified set of nursing-sensitive, emergency department (ED)-specific quality indicators. Purpose:The purpose of this study was to address the gap in quality indicators specific to the emergency care environment and identify a list of nursing-sensitive, ED-specific quality indicators across ED populations and phases of the ED visit for further development and testing. Methods: A modified Delphi technique was used to reach initial consensus. Results: Four thematic groups were identified, and quality indicators within each were rank ordered. Of the 4 groups, 21 quality indicators were identified: triage (6) was ranked highest, followed by special populations (4), transitions of care (4), and medical/surgical (7). Conclusions: Many of the recommended metrics were questionable because they are nonspecific to the ED setting or subject to influences in the emergency care environment. Some identified priorities for quality indicator development were unsupported; we recommend that alternate methodologies be used to identify critical areas of quality measurement.

show abstract