Faculty Bibliography

STUDY OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS:We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS:For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. METHODS:With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments. RESULTS:Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS:PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

BACKGROUND:The EQUIPPED (Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department) medication safety program is an evidence-informed quality improvement initiative to reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed by Emergency Department (ED) providers to adults aged 65 and older at discharge. We aimed to scale-up this successful program using (1) a traditional implementation model at an ED with a novel electronic medical record and (2) a new hub-and-spoke implementation model at three new EDs within a health system that had previously implemented EQUIPPED (hub). We hypothesized that implementation speed would increase under the hub-and-spoke model without cost to PIM reduction or site engagement. METHODS:We evaluated the effect of the EQUIPPED program on PIMs for each ED, comparing their 12-month baseline to 12-month post-implementation period prescribing data, number of months to implement EQUIPPED, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. RESULTS:The proportion of PIMs at all four sites declined significantly from pre- to post-EQUIPPED: at traditional site 1 from 8.9% (8.1-9.6) to 3.6% (3.6-9.6) (p < 0.001); at spread site 1 from 12.2% (11.2-13.2) to 7.1% (6.1-8.1) (p < 0.001); at spread site 2 from 11.3% (10.1-12.6) to 7.9% (6.4-8.8) (p = 0.045); and at spread site 3 from 16.2% (14.9-17.4) to 11.7% (10.3-13.0) (p < 0.001). Time to implement was equivalent at all sites across both models. Interview data, reflecting a wide scope of responsibilities for the champion at the traditional site and a narrow scope at the spoke sites, indicated disproportionate barriers to engagement at the spoke sites. CONCLUSIONS:EQUIPPED was successfully implemented under both implementation models at four new sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating the feasibility of adapting EQUIPPED to complex, real-world conditions. The hub-and-spoke model offers an effective way to scale-up EQUIPPED though a speed or quality advantage could not be shown.

Background: The EQUIPPED (Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department) medication safety program is an evidence-informed quality improvement initiative to reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed by Emergency Department (ED) providers to adults aged 65 and older at discharge. We aimed to scale-up this successful program using (1) a traditional implementation model at an ED with a novel electronic medical record and (2) a new hub-and-spoke implementation model at three new EDs within a health system that had previously implemented EQUIPPED (hub). We hypothesized that implementation speed would increase under the hub-and-spoke model without cost to PIM reduction or site engagement. Methods: We evaluated the effect of the EQUIPPED program on PIMs for each ED, comparing their 12-month baseline to 12-month post-implementation period prescribing data, number of months to implement EQUIPPED, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. Results: The proportion of PIMs at all four sites declined significantly from pre- to post-EQUIPPED: at traditional site 1 from 8.9% (8.1"“9.6) to 3.6% (3.6"“9.6) (p < 0.001); at spread site 1 from 12.2% (11.2"“13.2) to 7.1% (6.1"“8.1) (p < 0.001); at spread site 2 from 11.3% (10.1"“12.6) to 7.9% (6.4"“8.8) (p = 0.045); and at spread site 3 from 16.2% (14.9"“17.4) to 11.7% (10.3"“13.0) (p < 0.001). Time to implement was equivalent at all sites across both models. Interview data, reflecting a wide scope of responsibilities for the champion at the traditional site and a narrow scope at the spoke sites, indicated disproportionate barriers to engagement at the spoke sites. Conclusions: EQUIPPED was successfully implemented under both implementation models at four new sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating the feasibility of adapting EQUIPPED to complex, real-world conditions. The hub-and-spoke model offers an effective way to scale-up EQUIPPED though a speed or quality advantage could not be shown.

BACKGROUND:Geriatric emergency department (GED) guidelines endorse screening older patients for geriatric syndromes in the ED, but there have been significant barriers to widespread implementation. The majority of screening programs require engagement of a clinician, nurse, or social worker, adding to already significant workloads at a time of record-breaking ED patient volumes, staff shortages, and hospital boarding crises. Automated, electronic health record (EHR)-embedded risk stratification approaches may be an alternate solution for extending the reach of the GED mission by directing human actions to a smaller subset of higher risk patients. METHODS:We define the concept of automated risk stratification and screening using existing EHR data. We discuss progress made in three potential use cases in the ED: falls, cognitive impairment, and end-of-life and palliative care, emphasizing the importance of linking automated screening with systems of healthcare delivery. RESULTS:Research progress and operational deployment vary by use case, ranging from deployed solutions in falls screening to algorithmic validation in cognitive impairment and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS:Automated risk stratification offers a potential solution to one of the most pressing problems in geriatric emergency care: identifying high-risk populations of older adults most appropriate for specific GED care. Future work is needed to realize the promise of improved care with less provider burden by creating tools suitable for widespread deployment as well as best practices for their implementation and governance.

The objective of the study is to identify healthcare events leading to a diagnosis of dementia from a large real-world dataset. This study uses a data-driven approach to identify temporally ordered pairs and trajectories of healthcare codes in the electronic health record (EHR). This allows for discovery of novel temporal risk factors leading to an outcome of interest that may otherwise be unobvious. We identified several known (Down syndrome RR = 116.1, thiamine deficiency RR = 76.1, and Parkinson's disease RR = 41.1) and unknown (Brief psychotic disorder RR = 68.6, Toxic effect of metals RR = 40.4, and Schizoaffective disorders RR = 40.0) factors for a specific dementia diagnosis. The associations with the greatest risk for any dementia diagnosis were found to be primarily related to mental health (Brief psychotic disorder RR = 266.5, Dissociative and conversion disorders RR = 169.8), or neurologic conditions or procedures (Dystonia RR = 121.9, Lumbar Puncture RR = 119.0). Trajectory and clustering analysis identified factors related to cerebrovascular disorders, as well as diagnoses which increase the risk of toxic imbalances. The results of this study have the ability to provide valuable insights into potential patient progression towards dementia and improve recognition of patients at risk for developing dementia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE:We sought to describe diagnosis rates and compare common process outcomes between geriatric emergency departments (EDs) and nongeriatric EDs participating in the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR). METHODS:We conducted an observational study of ED visits in calendar year 2021 within the CEDR by older adults. The analytic sample included 6,444,110 visits at 38 geriatric EDs and 152 matched nongeriatric EDs, with the geriatric ED status determined based on linkage to the American College of Emergency Physicians' Geriatric ED Accreditation program. Stratified by age, we assessed diagnosis rates (X/1000) for 4 common geriatric syndrome conditions and a set of common process outcomes including the ED length of stay, discharge rates, and 72-hour revisit rates. RESULTS:Across all age categories, geriatric EDs had higher diagnosis rates than nongeriatric EDs for 3 of the 4 following geriatric syndrome conditions of interest: urinary tract infection, dementia, and delirium/altered mental status. The median ED site-level length of stay for older adults was lower at geriatric EDs compared with that at nongeriatric EDs, whereas 72-hour revisit rates were similar across all age categories. Geriatric EDs exhibited a median discharge rate of 67.5% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 60.8% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 55.6% for adults aged >85 years. Comparatively, the median discharge rate at nongeriatric ED sites was 69.0% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 64.2% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 61.3% for adults aged >85 years. CONCLUSION:Geriatric EDs had higher geriatric syndrome diagnosis rates, lower ED lengths of stay, and similar discharge and 72-hour revisit rates when compared with nongeriatric EDs in the CEDR. These findings provide the first benchmarks for emergency care process outcomes in geriatric EDs compared with nongeriatric EDs.