Motivating Factors for Participating in the Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0
Contributors to the GED Guidelines 2.0 reported a positive experience. They joined because they wanted to contribute to better care of older patients and to achieve personal and professional goals. Many cited that their roles aligned with their strengths and expertise. They also gained skills and knowledge on systematic reviews and benefited from networking. Future groups planning a similar process should consider having multiple levels of leadership, experts in systematic reviews, regular reminders, and creative incentives to improve the process and foster improved networking opportunities within their disciplines.
Authors
- W. Stanley Coates
- S Liu
- Ronna L. Campbell (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6305-6990)
- Kei Ouchi
- Elizabeth M. Goldberg (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1817-0705)
- James David van Oppen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2570-7112)
- Satheesh Gunaga (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6507-4487)
- Craig Hooper
- Fernanda Bellolio
- Grace Wang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2063-031X)
- Sangil Lee
- GED Guidelines Qualitative Study Group
Institutions
- University of Iowa (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Henry Ford Health System (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Academic Emergency Medicine
- Published
- 2026-02-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70237
- Primary Topic
- Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00