Cited by 26Emergency and Acute Care StudiesGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Understanding why older adults choose to seek non-urgent care in the emergency department: the patient’s perspective

Open access
Goodridge, Donna, Stempien, James·2019·CJEM

Abstract

Objectives: Older adults make up a significant proportion of patients seeking care in the ED, with about 25% of these visits classified as “non-urgent.” This study explored older adults’ understandings, expectations of and self-reported reasons for seeking care and treatment provided in the ED. Methods: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with CTAS 4-5 patients conducted at randomly selected times and days during ED visits at three Saskatoon facilities in 2016. Thematic analysis was used to analyze interview data. Results: 115 patients over age 65 years (mean age 79.1 years) were interviewed. While the majority had independently or with family made the decision to attend the ED, almost one-third of patients (31.6%) reported that they had been referred to the ED by general practitioners or specialists. Few respondents indicated the visit was the result of their general practitioner not being available. Most participants cited comprehensiveness and convenience of diagnostic and treatment services in a single location as the primary motivation for seeking treatment in the ED, which was especially important to those in poor health, without family supports, or with functional limitations, personal mobility and/or transportation challenges. Other common motivations were availability of after-hours care and perceived higher quality care compared to primary care. Conclusions: Accessibility to comprehensive care, availability, quality of care and positive past experiences were key considerations for older adults seeking treatment of non-urgent concerns. Older adults will likely continue to use EDs for non-urgent medical care until trusted, “one-stop” settings that better addresses the needs of this population are more widely available.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cem.2018.378

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodridge, D., & Stempien, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • Saskatchewan Health Authority (CA)
Corresponding author
Goodridge, Donna
Venue
CJEM
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
243-248
ISSN
  • 1481-8035 (ISSN-L)
  • 1481-8043
OpenAlex
W2807122919
Cited by
26
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
China Academy of Engineering Physics
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
older adults, non-urgent emergency visits, patient perspectives, emergency department utilization, out-of-hours care, perceived quality of care, health care access, functional limitations, transportation barriers, primary care access, patient decision-making
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Pain, Quality of Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Saskatchewan, Wounds and Injuries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review