Home › Research › Risk genes beyond APOE
Enhancing Emergency Care for Persons Living with Dementia: Innovation and Age-friendly Approaches in Three Emergency Departments
Hauser, K. A.; Degesys, N. F.; Isaacs, E. D.; Tang, M.; Swartzberg, J.; Panopulos, V.; Martin, A. M.; Liu et al.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-08-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
KEY POINTSO_LIThis paper demonstrates the feasibility of implementing Geriatric ED programs with targeted support for people living with or at risk for dementia across three distinct health systems in San Francisco. We describe the reach and implementation processes of each program including commonalities, differences, challenges faced, and opportunities for future improvement. C_LIO_LICreating unique care pathways for older adults and those with cognitive impairment in the emergency department (ED) is often guided by health system resources. C_LIO_LIAssessing cognition and identifying potential dementia is feasible during an ED visit. C_LIO_LIAn interprofessional approach to geriatric ED care is essential to sustainability and success.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hauser, K. A., Degesys, N. F., Isaacs, E. D., Tang, M., Swartzberg, J., Panopulos, V., et al. (2026). Enhancing Emergency Care for Persons Living with Dementia: Innovation and Age-friendly Approaches in Three Emergency Departments. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.19.26360807
Vancouver
Hauser KA, Degesys NF, Isaacs ED, Tang M, Swartzberg J, Panopulos V, et al. Enhancing Emergency Care for Persons Living with Dementia: Innovation and Age-friendly Approaches in Three Emergency Departments. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.08.19.26360807.
BibTeX
@article{hauser2026-a23f2332,
author = {Hauser, K. A. and Degesys, N. F. and Isaacs, E. D. and Tang, M. and Swartzberg, J. and Panopulos, V. and Martin, A. M. and Liu and others},
title = {{Enhancing Emergency Care for Persons Living with Dementia: Innovation and Age-friendly Approaches in Three Emergency Departments}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.08.19.26360807},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.19.26360807}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- KEY POINTSO_LIThis paper demonstrates the feasibility of implementing Geriatric ED programs with targeted support for people living with or at risk for dementia across three distinct health systems in San Francisco.
- We describe the reach and implementation processes of each program including commonalities, differences, challenges faced, and opportunities for future improvement.
- C_LIO_LICreating unique care pathways for older adults and those with cognitive impairment in the emergency department (ED) is often guided by health system resources.
- C_LIO_LIAssessing cognition and identifying potential dementia is feasible during an ED visit.
- C_LIO_LIAn interprofessional approach to geriatric ED care is essential to sustainability and success.
Why it matters
This paper describes implementing Geriatric Emergency Department programs with targeted support for people living with or at risk for dementia across three health systems. It addresses emergency care delivery and feasibility, not the treatment, cure or prevention of Alzheimer's disease itself.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 22 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 22 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Ula Hwang: h-index 44 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Yale University: institution h-index 1,927 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 21 / 94 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 22 out of 100. |
| Total | 22 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk genes beyond APOE
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.