Faculty Bibliography

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: 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: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: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: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.

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: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:Emergency department (ED) visits are common at the end-of-life, but the identification of patients with life-limiting illness remains a key challenge in providing timely and resource-sensitive advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care services. To date, there are no validated, automatable instruments for ED end-of-life screening. Here, we developed a novel electronic health record (EHR) prognostic model to screen older ED patients at high risk for 6-month mortality and compare its performance to validated comorbidity indices. METHODS:This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of ED visits from adults aged ≥65 years who visited any of 9 EDs across a large regional health system between 2014 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression that included clinical and demographic variables, vital signs, and laboratory data was used to develop a 6-month mortality predictive model-the Geriatric End-of-life Screening Tool (GEST) using five-fold cross-validation on data from 8 EDs. Performance was compared to the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. Reproducibility was tested against data from the remaining independent ED within the health system. We then used GEST to investigate rates of ACP documentation availability and code status orders in the EHR across risk strata. RESULTS:A total of 431,179 encounters by 123,128 adults were included in this study with a 6-month mortality rate of 12.2%. Charlson (AUROC (95% CI): 0.65 (0.64-0.69)) and Elixhauser indices (0.69 (0.68-0.70)) were outperformed by GEST (0.82 (0.82-0.83)). GEST displayed robust performance across demographic subgroups and in our independent validation site. Among patients with a greater than 30% mortality risk using GEST, only 5.0% had ACP documentation; 79.0% had a code status previously ordered, of which 70.7% were full code. In decision curve analysis, GEST provided greater net benefit than the Charlson and Elixhauser scores. CONCLUSIONS:Prognostic models using EHR data robustly identify high mortality risk older adults in the ED for whom code status, ACP, or palliative care interventions may be of benefit. Although all tested methods identified patients approaching the end-of-life, GEST was most performant. These tools may enable resource-sensitive end-of-life screening in the ED.