Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Care transitions from the emergency department (ED) to the community represent a critical period that can significantly impact clinical outcomes of older adults, yet there is a lack of standardized tools to measure patient-reported experiences and outcomes during this transition. Our objective was to develop and validate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure-Older adult care Transitions in the ED (PROM-OTED) tool to measure care transition outcomes within 4-10 days after ED discharge. METHODS:Older adults (65+ years) discharged from four EDs were enrolled between November 2021 and April 2024 in a multiphase process: qualitative interviews, item generation, member checking, cognitive debriefing, technical expert panel review, and psychometric evaluation and validation. We employed descriptive statistics, item analysis, interitem correlation, and factor analyses to assess the tool's validity and reliability. RESULTS:Across all phases, we enrolled 290 older adults. The final 18-item PROM-OTED tool included items that addressed understanding of discharge instructions, medication management, follow-up care, and quality of life. The tool demonstrated feasibility with a mean (±SD) completion time of 4.97 (±3.04) min and was able to be administered electronically or via telephone. The tool additionally demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.9376, McDonald's omega 0.9988) and good test-retest reliability (r = 0.8437). Exploratory factor analysis supported a robust factor structure and significant correlations between the PROM-OTED tool with the Care Transitions Measure-3, a general measure of hospital discharge quality of care, support its concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS:The PROM-OTED tool is a reliable and preliminarily valid instrument for use during the immediate post-ED period, with potential clinical applications in enhancing discharge practices and assessing care transition outcomes of older adults during observational or interventional studies.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Many seriously injured older adults are not transported to trauma centers (TCs), a phenomenon known as undertriage. System-level factors that contribute to undertriage are poorly understood. One important system-level factor is the regional supply of TCs. We hypothesized that regions with greater supply of TCs would have higher rates of transport to a TC for seriously injured older adults. METHODS:In this retrospective cross-sectional study using Medicare data from 2014 to 2015, we measured the proportion of seriously injured (injury severity score > 15) older adults (age ≥ 65 y) who were transported to a level I or level II TC within trauma service areas (TSAs), which consist of United States counties aggregated into contiguous geographic regions based on the most frequent hospital destinations for emergency conditions. Patients residing in rural regions were excluded. The primary outcome was transported to a level I or level II TC. The exposure was the supply of TCs within TSAs, grouped into terciles based on the number of TCs per capita. We performed a multivariable hierarchical logistic regression for the odds of TC transport with a random intercept for TSA and fixed effects for TC supply, patient demographics, and injury characteristics. RESULTS:Our study included 68,128 seriously injured older adults residing in 309 TSAs. The tercile of TSAs with the lowest supply of TCs had 1.13 TCs per 1,000,000 population, and 38.8% of seriously injured older adults were transported to a TC. In contrast, the tercile with the highest supply of TCs had 4.15 TCs per 1,000,000 population, and 68.5% were transported to a TC. On multivariable hierarchical logistic regression, TSAs with the highest supply of TCs had four times higher odds of transport to a TC compared to TSAs with the lowest supply of TCs (odds ratio 4.23; 95% confidence interval: 3.32-5.38; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Older adults with serious injuries are more likely to be transported to a TC in TSAs with greater supply of TCs. Ensuring an appropriate supply of TCs within TSA regions may help to reduce rates of undertriage for seriously injured older adults.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Abdominal pain is the most common reason for visit (RFV) to the emergency department (ED) for adults, yet no standardized diagnostic pathway exists for abdominal pain. Optimal management is age-specific; symptoms, diagnoses, and prognoses differ between young and old adults. Availability and knowledge of the effectiveness of various imaging modalities have also changed over time. We compared diagnostic imaging rates for younger versus older adults to identify practice patterns of abdominal imaging across age groups over time. METHODS:We analyzed weighted, nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2007-2019 for adult ED visits with a primary RFV of abdominal pain. We included 23,364 sampled visits, representing 123 million visits. RESULTS:From 2007 to 2019, total visits increased for ages 18-45 (p < 0.001), 46-64 (p < 0.001), and 65+ (p = 0.032). The percentage of visits with primary RFV of abdominal pain increased from 9.4% to 11.6% for ages 18-45, 7.8%-9.0% for ages 46-64, and 6.0%-6.5% for 65+. Computed tomography (CT) scan rates increased over time from 26.2% of all patients receiving a CT scan to 42.6%. Relative percentage change in abdominal CT scans was greatest for older adults, with a 30.3% increase, compared to 24.0% for middle-aged adults and 15.0% for young adults. Test positivity, defined as receiving an emergency general surgical diagnosis after CT or ultrasound, increased from 17.2% in 2007 to 22.9% in 2019 (p < 0.01). Of the older adults with abdominal pain in 2019, 13% received an X-ray only, which is neither sensitive nor specific for acute pathology in older adults. CONCLUSIONS:Despite more abdominal pain ED visits and increased imaging rates per visit, test positivity continues to rise. Our findings do not support claims that CT and ultrasound are being used less appropriately over time, but demonstrate widespread use of X-rays, which are potentially ineffective for abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Older adults may present to the emergency department (ED) with agitation, a symptom often resulting in chemical sedation and physical restraint use which carry significant risks and side effects for the geriatric population. To date, limited literature describes the patterns of differential restraint use in this population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:This retrospective cross-sectional study used electronic health records data from ED visits by older adults (age ≥65 years) ranging 2015-2022 across nine hospital sites in a regional hospital network. Logistic regression models were estimated to determine the association between patient-level characteristics and the primary outcomes of chemical sedation and physical restraint. RESULTS:Among 872,587 ED visits during the study period, 11,875 (1.4%) and 32,658 (3.7%) encounters involved the use of chemical sedation and physical restraints respectively. The populations aged 75-84, 85-94, 95+ years had increasingly higher odds of chemical sedation [adjusted odds ratios (AORs) 1.35 (95% CI 1.29-1.42); 1.82 (1.73-1.91); 2.35 (2.15-2.57) respectively] as well as physical restraint compared to the 65-74 group [AOR 1.31 (1.27-1.34); 1.55 (1.50-1.60); 1.69 (1.59-1.79)]. Compared to the White Non-Hispanic group, the Black Non-Hispanic and Hispanic/Latinx groups had significantly higher odds of chemical sedation [AOR 1.26 (1.18-1.35); AOR 1.22 (1.15-1.29)] and physical restraint [AOR 1.12 (95% CI 1.07-1.16); 1.22 (1.18-1.26)]. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Approximately one in 20 ED visits among older adults resulted in chemical sedation or physical restraint use. Minoritized group status was associated with increasing use of chemical sedation and physical restraint, particularly among the oldest old. These results may indicate the need for further research in agitation management for historically marginalized populations in older adults.

BACKGROUND:Emergency department (ED) visits at end-of-life may cause financial strain and serve as a marker of inadequate access to community services and health care. We sought to examine end-of-life ED use, total healthcare spending, and out-of-pocket spending in a nationally representative sample. METHODS:Using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data, we conducted a pooled cross-sectional analysis of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ years with a date of death between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Our primary outcomes were ED visits, total healthcare spending, and out-of-pocket spending in the 7, 30, 90, and 180 days preceding death. We estimated a series of zero-inflated negative binomial models identifying patient characteristics associated with the primary outcomes. RESULTS:Among 3812 older adult decedents, 610 (16%), 1207 (31.7%), 1582 (41.5%), and 1787 (46.9%) Medicare beneficiaries had ED visits in the final 7, 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively, of life. For Medicare beneficiaries with at least one ED visit in the final 30 days of life, the median total and out-of-pocket costs were, respectively, $12,500 and $308, compared, respectively, with $278 and $94 for those without any ED visits (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Having a diagnosis of dementia (odds ratio [OR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.99; p = 0.04) and being on hospice status during the year of death (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.48-0.66; p = <0.001) were associated with a decreased likelihood of having an ED visit. Having dementia was associated with a decreased likelihood of having any healthcare spending (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36-0.71; p = 0.001) and any out-of-pocket spending (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.36-0.72; p = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:One in three older adults visit the ED in the last month of life, and approximately one in two utilize ED services in the last half-year of life, with evidence of associated considerable total and out-of-pocket spending.

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.

STUDY OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS:We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS:Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

BACKGROUND:The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Specialist (GEMS) pilot program is an innovative approach that utilizes geriatric-trained advanced practice providers to facilitate geriatric assessments and care planning for older adults in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to explore the effect of GEMS on the use of observation status and final ED disposition. METHODS:This was a retrospective study under a target trial emulation framework. Geriatric patients (65+ years old) who presented to two ED sites within a large regional healthcare system between December 2020 and December 2022 were included. The primary outcome was final ED disposition (discharge, hospital inpatient admission, or hospital observation admission). Secondary outcomes included ED observation and ED length of stay. Non-GEMS patients were propensity score matched 5:1 to GEMS patients. Doubly robust regression was used to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of inpatient admission, discharge, hospital observation admission, ED observation admission, and estimate the mean ED length of stay. RESULTS:A total of 427 of 43,064 total patients (1.0%) received a GEMS intervention during the study period. Our analysis included 2,302 geriatric ED patients (410 GEMS, 1,892 non-GEMS) after propensity score matching. Hospital admission rates were 34.1% for GEMS compared to 56.4% for conventional treatment. GEMS patients had decreased odds of inpatient admission (OR: 0.41, 95 CI: 0.34-0.51, p < 0.001), increased odds of discharge (OR: 1.19 95 CI: 1.00-1.42, p = 0.047), hospital observation admission (OR: 2.97, 95 CI: 2.35-3.75, p < 0.001), ED observation admission (OR: 4.84 95 CI: 3.67-6.38, p < 0.001), and had a longer average ED length of stay (170 min, 95 CI: 84.6-256, p < 0.001) compared to non-GEMS patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients seen by GEMS during their ED visit were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge and lower rates of hospital admissions.

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: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.