Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES:We aimed to describe emergency department (ED) care transition interventions delivered to older adults with cognitive impairment, identify relevant patient-centered outcomes, and determine priority research areas for future investigation. DESIGN:Systematic scoping review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:ED patients with cognitive impairment and/or their care partners. METHODS:Informed by the clinical questions, we conducted systematic electronic searches of medical research databases for relevant publications following published guidelines. The results were presented to a stakeholder group representing ED-based and non-ED-based clinicians, individuals living with cognitive impairment, care partners, and advocacy organizations. After discussion, they voted on potential research areas to prioritize for future investigations. RESULTS:From 3848 publications identified, 78 eligible studies underwent full text review, and 10 articles were abstracted. Common ED-to-community care transition interventions for older adults with cognitive impairment included interdisciplinary geriatric assessments, home visits from medical personnel, and telephone follow-ups. Intervention effects were mixed, with improvements observed in 30-day ED revisit rates but most largely ineffective at promoting connections to outpatient care or improving secondary outcomes such as physical function. Outcomes identified as important to adults with cognitive impairment and their care partners included care coordination between providers and inclusion of care partners in care management within the ED setting. The highest priority research area for future investigation identified by stakeholders was identifying strategies to tailor ED-to-community care transitions for adults living with cognitive impairment complicated by other vulnerabilities such as social isolation or economic disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:This scoping review identified key gaps in ED-to-community care transition interventions delivered to older adults with cognitive impairment. Combined with a stakeholder assessment and prioritization, it identified relevant patient-centered outcomes and clarifies priority areas for future investigation to improve ED care for individuals with impaired cognition, an area of critical need given the current population trends.

OBJECTIVES:To identify research and practice gaps to establish future research priorities to advance the detection of cognitive impairment and dementia in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN:Literature review and consensus-based rankings by a transdisciplinary, stakeholder task force of experts, persons living with dementia, and care partners. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Scoping reviews focused on adult ED patients. METHODS:Two systematic scoping reviews of 7 medical research databases focusing on best tools and approaches for detecting cognitive impairment and dementia in the ED in terms of (1) most accurate and (2) most pragmatic to implement. The results were screened, reviewed, and abstracted for relevant information and presented at the stakeholder consensus conference for discussion and ranked prioritization. RESULTS:We identified a total of 1464 publications and included 45 to review for accurate tools and approaches for detecting cognitive impairment and dementia. Twenty-seven different assessments and instruments have been studied in the ED setting to evaluate cognitive impairment and dementia, with many focusing on sensitivity and specificity of instruments to screen for cognitive impairment. For pragmatic tools, we identified a total of 2166 publications and included 66 in the review. Most extensively studied tools included the Ottawa 3DY and Six-Item Screener (SIS). The SIS was the shortest to administer (1 minute). Instruments with the highest negative predictive value were the SIS (vs MMSE) and the 4 A's Test (vs expert diagnosis). The GEAR 2.0 Advancing Dementia Care Consensus conference ranked research priorities that included the need for more approaches to recognize more effectively and efficiently persons who may be at risk for cognitive impairment and dementia, while balancing the importance of equitable screening, purpose, and consequences of differentiating various forms of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:The scoping review and consensus process identified gaps in clinical care that should be prioritized for research efforts to detect cognitive impairment and dementia in the ED setting. These gaps will be addressed as future GEAR 2.0 research funding priorities.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The "4Ms" model - What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility - is increasingly gaining attention in age-friendly health systems, yet a feasible approach to identifying what matters to older adults in the emergency department (ED) is lacking. Adapting the "What Matters" questions to the ED setting, we sought to describe the concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians. METHODS:We conducted 46 dyadic semi-structured interviews of cognitively intact older adults and their treating clinicians. We used the "What Matters" conversation guide to explore patients' 1) concerns and 2) desired outcomes. We then asked analogous questions to each patient's treating clinician regarding the patient's priorities. Interviews were professionally transcribed and coded using an inductive approach of thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS:Interviews with older adults lasted a mean of three minutes, with a range of 1-8 minutes. Regarding patients' concerns, five themes emerged from older adults: 1) concern through a family member or outpatient clinician recommendation; 2) no concern, with a high degree of trust in the healthcare system; 3) concerns regarding symptom cause identification; 4) concerns regarding symptom resolution; and 5) concerns regarding preservation of their current status. Regarding desired outcomes, five priority themes emerged among older adults: 1) obtaining a diagnosis; 2) returning to their home environment; 3) reducing or resolving symptoms; 4) maintaining self-care and independence; and 5) gaining reassurance. Responding to what they believed mattered most to older adult patients, ED clinicians believed that older adults were concerned primarily about symptom cause identification and resolution and primarily desired a return to the home environment and symptom reduction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This work identifies concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians as well as the feasibility of incorporating the "What Matters" questions within ED clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION:Increasingly, older adults are turning to emergency departments (EDs) to address healthcare needs. To achieve these research demands, infrastructure is needed to both generate evidence of intervention impact and advance the development of implementation science, pragmatic trials evaluation and dissemination of findings from studies addressing the emergency care needs of older adults. The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (https://gearnetwork.org) has been created in response to these scientific needs-to build a transdisciplinary infrastructure to support the research that will optimise emergency care for older adults and persons living with dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In this paper, we describe our approach to developing the GEAR Network infrastructure, the scoping reviews to identify research and clinical gaps and its use of consensus-driven research priorities with a transdisciplinary taskforce of stakeholders that includes patients and care partners. We describe how priority topic areas are ascertained, the process of conducting scoping reviews with integrated academic librarians performing standardised searches and providing quality control on reviews, input and support from the taskforce and conducting a large-scale consensus workshop to prioritise future research topics. The GEAR Network approach provides a framework and systematic approach to develop a research agenda and support research in geriatric emergency care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This is a systematic review of previously conducted research; accordingly, it does not constitute human subjects research needing ethics review. These reviews will be prepared as manuscripts and submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals, and the results will be presented at conferences.Open Science Framework registered DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6QRYX, 10.17605/OSF.IO/AKVZ8, 10.17605/OSF.IO/EPVR5, 10.17605/OSF.IO/VXPRS.

STUDY OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study were to describe the reach and adoption of Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program and care processes instituted at accredited geriatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS:We analyzed a cross-section of a cohort of US EDs that received GEDA from May 2018 to March 2021. We obtained data from the American College of Emergency Physicians and publicly available sources. Data included GEDA level, geographic location, urban/rural designation, and care processes instituted. Frequencies and proportions and median and interquartile ranges were used to summarize categorical and continuous data, respectively. RESULTS:Over the study period, 225 US geriatric ED accreditations were issued and included in our analysis-14 Level 1, 21 Level 2, and 190 Level 3 geriatric EDs; 5 geriatric EDs reapplied and received higher-level accreditation after initial accreditation at a lower level. Only 9 geriatric EDs were in rural regions. There was significant heterogeneity in protocols enacted at geriatric EDs; minimizing urinary catheter use and fall prevention were the most common. CONCLUSION:There has been rapid growth in geriatric EDs, driven by Level 3 accreditation. Most geriatric EDs are in urban areas, indicating the potential need for expansion beyond these areas. Future research evaluating the impact of GEDA on health care utilization and patient-oriented outcomes is needed.

Medical research across all fields has historically excluded older adults (aged 65 years and older). Because older adults have a higher burden of chronic illness, respond differently to treatment, and are more prone to medication side effects, the results of current research may not be applicable to this important population. To address this major research deficiency, the National Institutes of Health established the Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy, effective January 2019. We present important considerations and proven strategies for successful inclusion of older adults in emergency care research relating to study design, participant recruitment and retention, and sources of support for investigators.

BACKGROUND:Abdominal pain is the most common chief complaint in US emergency departments (EDs) among patients over 65, who are at high risk of mortality or incident disability after the ED encounter. We sought to characterize the evaluation, management, and disposition of older adults who present to the ED with abdominal pain. METHODS:We performed a survey-weighted analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), comparing older adults with a chief complaint of abdominal pain to those without. Visits from 2013 to 2017 to nationally representative EDs were included. We analyzed 81,509 visits to 1211 US EDs, which projects to 531,780,629 ED visits after survey weighting. We report the diagnostic testing, evaluation, management, additional reasons for visit, and disposition of ED visits. RESULTS:Among older adults (≥65 years), 7% of ED visits were for abdominal pain. Older patients with abdominal pain had a lower probability of being triaged to the "Emergent" (ESI2) acuity on arrival (7.1% vs. 14.8%) yet were more likely to be admitted directly to the operating room than older adults without abdominal pain (3.6% vs. 0.8%), with no statistically significant differences in discharge home, death, or admission to critical care. Ultrasound or CT imaging was performed in 60% of older adults with abdominal pain. A minority (39%) of older patients with abdominal pain received an electrocardiogram (EKG). CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal pain in older adults presenting to EDs is a serious condition yet is triaged to "emergent" acuity at half the rate of other conditions. Opportunities for improving diagnosis and management may exist. Further research is needed to examine whether improved recognition of abdominal pain as a syndromic presentation would improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) is an effective quality improvement program initially designed in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing for adults aged 65 years and older. This study examined factors that influence implementation of EQUIPPED in EDs from four distinct, non-VA academic health systems using a convergent mixed methods design that operationalized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity of delivery served as the primary implementation outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:= 22) and data from CFIR-based surveys of ED providers (108/234, response rate of 46.2%) to identify CFIR constructs that distinguished EDs with higher vs. lower levels of implementation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, three sites demonstrated higher levels of implementation (scoring 8-9 of 12) and one ED exhibited a lower level (scoring 5 of 12). Two constructs distinguished between levels of implementation as measured through both quantitative and qualitative approaches: patient needs and resources, and organizational culture. Implementation climate distinguished level of implementation in the qualitative analysis only. Networks and communication, and leadership engagement distinguished level of implementation in the quantitative analysis only. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Using CFIR, we demonstrate how a range of factors influence a critical implementation outcome and build an evidence-based approach on how to prime an organizational setting, such as an academic health system ED, for successful implementation. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This study provides insights into implementation of evidence-informed programs targeting medication safety in ED settings and serves as a potential model for how to integrate theory-based qualitative and quantitative methods in implementation studies.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Nearly half of all persons living with dementia (PLwD) will visit the emergency department (ED) in any given year and ED visits by PLwD are associated with short-term adverse outcomes. Care partner engagement is critical in the care of PLwD, but little is known about their patterns of communication with ED clinicians. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) review of a random sampling of patients ≥ 65 years with a historical diagnosis code of dementia who visited an ED within a large regional health network between 1/2014 and 1/2022. ED notes within the EHRs were coded for documentation of care partner communication and presence of a care partner in the ED. Logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with the composite outcome of either care partner communication or care partner presence in the ED. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 460 patients were included. The median age was 83.0 years, 59.3% were female, 11.3% were Black, and 7.6% Hispanic. A care partner was documented in the ED for 22.4% of the visits and care partner communication documented for 43.9% of visits. 54.8% of patients had no documentation of care partner communication nor evidence of a care partner at the bedside. In multivariate logistic regression, increasing age (OR, (95% CI): 1.06 (1.04-1.09)), altered mental status (OR: 2.26 (1.01-5.05)), and weakness (OR: 3.38 (1.49-7.65)) significantly increased the probability of having care partner communication documented or a care partner at the bedside. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:More than half of PLwD in our sample did not have clinician documentation of communication with a care partner or a care partner in the ED. Further studies are needed to use these insights to improve communication with care partners of PLwD in the ED.