# Usability of the 4Ms Worksheet in the Emergency Department for Older Patients: A Qualitative Study

## TL;DR

This study explores how well the 4Ms worksheet helps emergency clinicians understand older patients' care goals and whether it's practical to use in the emergency department.

## Contribution

The study is the first to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the 4Ms worksheet in the emergency department for older patients.

## Key findings

- Most patients and clinicians agreed on the main care goal, but clinicians often missed underlying patient goals.
- Many patients preferred having the worksheet filled out by someone else rather than themselves.
- Discrepancies were found between what was written on the worksheet and what was discussed in interviews.

## Abstract

Older adults often have multiple comorbidities; therefore, they are at high risk for adverse events after discharge. The 4Ms framework—what matters, medications, mentation, mobility—has been used in acute and ambulatory care settings to identify risk factors for adverse events in older adults, although it has not been used in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to determine whether 1) use of the 4Ms worksheet would help emergency clinicians understand older adult patients’ goals of care and 2) use of the worksheet was feasible in the ED.

We conducted a qualitative, descriptive study among patients aged ≥60 years and emergency clinicians from January–June 2022. Patients were asked to fill out a 4Ms worksheet; following this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians separately. We analysed data to create codes, which were divided into categories and sub-categories.

A total of 20 older patients and 19 emergency clinicians were interviewed. We identified two categories based on our aims: understanding patient goals of care (sub-categories: clinician/ patient concordance; understanding underlying goals of care; underlying goals of care discrepancy) and use of 4Ms Worksheet (sub-categories: worksheet to discussion discrepancy; challenges using worksheet; challenge completing worksheet before discharge). Rates of concordance between patient and clinician on main concern/goal of care and underlying goals of care were 82.4% and 15.4%, respectively.

We found that most patients and emergency clinicians agreed on the main goal of care, although clinicians often failed to elicit patients’ underlying goal(s) of care. Additionally, many patients preferred to have the interviewer fill out the worksheet for them. There was often discrepancy between what was written and what was discussed with the interviewer. More research is needed to determine the best way to integrate the 4Ms framework within emergency care.