Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) prescribed in an academic emergency department (ED) are associated with increased ED revisits in older adults. METHODS:A retrospective chart review of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older, discharged from an academic ED (January 2012 - November 2015) with any PIMs versus no PIMs. PIMs were defined using Category 1 of the 2015 Updated Beers criteria. Primary outcomes, obtained from a Medicare database linked to hospital ED subjects, were ED revisits 3 and 30 days from index ED discharge. Adjusted multiple logistic regression was used with entropy balance weighted covariates: Age in years, Gender, Race, Number of discharge medications, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, Emergency Severity Index scores (ESI), Chief Complaint, Medicaid status, and prior 90 Day ED visits. RESULTS:Over the study period, there were a total of 7,591 Medicare beneficiaries 65+ discharged from the ED with a prescription; 1,383 (18%) received one or more PIMs. ED revisits in 30 days were fewer for the PIMs cohort (12% PIMs vs 16% no PIMs, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 - 0.95, P value <0.005). Hospital admissions in 30 days were fewer for the PIMs cohort (4 PIMs vs 7% no PIMs, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 - 1.00, P value <0.005). In addition to PIMs, covariate risk factors associated with ED revisits in 30 days included comorbidity severity, history of prior ED revisits, chief complaint, and Medicaid status. Risk factors associated with hospitalization in 30 days included those plus age and emergency severity index, but not race nor ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS:Patients discharged from the ED receiving potentially inappropriate medications as defined by Category 1 of the 2015 updated Beers criteria had lower odds of revisiting the ED within 30 days of index visit. Sociodemographic factors such as gender and race did not predict ED revisits or hospital admissions. Clinical characteristics predicted ED revisits and hospital admissions, the strongest risk being increasing Charlson Comorbidity Index score followed by triage acuity and chief complaint. Future studies are needed to delineate the implications of our findings.

BACKGROUND:Older adult delirium is often unrecognized in the emergency department (ED), yet the most compelling research questions to overcome knowledge-to-practice deficits remain undefined. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network was organized to identify and prioritize delirium clinical questions. METHODS:GEAR identified and engaged 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders including emergency physicians, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patient advocates. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews, clinical questions were derived, medical librarian electronic searches were conducted, and applicable research evidence was synthesized for ED delirium detection, prevention, and management. The scoping review served as the foundation for a consensus conference to identify the highest priority research foci. RESULTS:In the scoping review, 27 delirium detection "instruments" were described in 48 ED studies and used variable criterion standards with the result of delirium prevalence ranging from 6% to 38%. Clinician gestalt was the most common "instrument" evaluated with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 81% and specificity from 65% to 100%. For delirium management, 15 relevant studies were identified, including one randomized controlled trial. Some intervention studies targeted clinicians via education and others used clinical pathways. Three medications were evaluated to reduce or prevent ED delirium. No intervention consistently prevented or treated delirium. After reviewing the scoping review results, the GEAR stakeholders identified ED delirium prevention interventions not reliant on additional nurse or physician effort as the highest priority research. CONCLUSIONS:Transdisciplinary stakeholders prioritize ED delirium prevention studies that are not reliant on health care worker tasks instead of alternative research directions such as defining etiologic delirium phenotypes to target prevention or intervention strategies.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Individual-level social needs have been shown to substantially impact emergency department (ED) care transitions of older adults. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network aimed to identify care transition interventions, particularly addressing social needs, and prioritize future research questions. METHODS:GEAR engaged 49 interdisciplinary stakeholders, derived clinical questions, and conducted searches of electronic databases to identify ED discharge care transition interventions in older adult populations. Informed by the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE) framework, data extraction and synthesis of included studies included the degree that intervention components addressed social needs and their association with patient outcomes. GEAR convened a consensus conference to identify topics of highest priority for future care transitions research. RESULTS:Our search identified 248 unique articles addressing care transition interventions in older adult populations. Of these, 17 individual care transition intervention studies were included in the current literature synthesis. Overall, common care transition interventions included coordination efforts, comprehensive geriatric assessments, discharge planning, and telephone or in-person follow-up. Fourteen of the 17 care transition intervention studies in older adults specifically addressed at least one social need within the PRAPARE framework, most commonly related to access to food, medicine, or health care. No care transition intervention addressing social needs in older adult populations consistently reduced subsequent health care utilization or other patient-centered outcomes. GEAR stakeholders identified that determining optimal outcome measures for ED-home transition interventions was the highest priority area for future care transitions research. CONCLUSIONS:ED care transition intervention studies in older adults frequently address at least one social need component and exhibit variation in the degree of success on a wide array of health care utilization outcomes.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There has been a significant increase in the implementation and dissemination of geriatric emergency department (GED) programs. Understanding the costs associated with patient care would yield insight into the direct financial value for patients, hospitals, health systems, and payers. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the association of GED programs with Medicare costs per beneficiary. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study included data on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at 2 hospitals implementing Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations in Care Through Workforce, Informatics, and Structural Enhancement (GEDI WISE) (Mount Sinai Medical Center [MSMC] and Northwestern Memorial Hospital [NMH]) from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2016. Analyses were conducted and refined from August 28, 2018, to November 20, 2020, using entropy balance to account for observed differences between the treatment and comparison groups. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Treatment included consultation with a transitional care nurse (TCN) or a social worker (SW) trained for the GEDI WISE program at a beneficiary's first ED visit (index ED visit). The comparison group included beneficiaries who were never seen by either a TCN or an SW during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The main outcome evaluated was prorated total Medicare payer expenditures per beneficiary over 30 and 60 days after the index ED visit encounter. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the total 24 839 unique Medicare beneficiaries, 4041 were seen across the 2 EDs; 1947 (17.4%) at MSMC and 2094 (15.4%) at the NMH received treatment from either a GED TCN and/or a GED SW. The mean (SD) age of beneficiaries at MSMC was 78.8 (8.5) years and at NMH was 76.4 (7.7) years. Most patients at both hospitals were female (6821 [60.8%] at MSMC and 8023 [58.9%] at NMH) and White (7729 [68.9%] at MSMC and 9984 [73.3%] at NMH). Treatment was associated with statistically significant mean savings per beneficiary of $2436 (95% CI, $1760-$3111; P < .001) at one ED and $2905 (95% CI, $2378-$3431; P < .001) at the other ED in the 30 days after the index ED visit. The association between treatment and mean cumulative savings at 60 days after the index ED visit per beneficiary was also significant: $1200 (95% CI, $231-$2169; P = .02) at one ED and $3202 (95% CI, $2452-$3951; P < .001) at the other ED. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, receipt of ED-based geriatric treatment by a TCN and/or an SW was associated with lower Medicare expenditures. These estimated cost savings may be used when calculating or considering the bundled value and potential reimbursement per patient for GED care programs.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To present the three-site EQUIPPED academic health system research collaborative, which engaged in sequential implementation of the EQUIPPED medication safety program, as a learning health system; to understand how the organizations worked together to build resources for program scale-up. DESIGN/METHODS:Following the Replicating Effective Programs framework, we analyzed content from implementation teams' focus groups, local and cross-site meeting minutes and sites' organizational profiles to develop an implementation package. SETTING/METHODS:Three academic emergency departments that each implemented EQUIPPED over three successive years. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Implementation team members at each site participating in focus groups (n = 18), local meetings during implementation years, and cross-site meetings during all years of the projects. INTERVENTION(S)/METHODS:EQUIPPED provides Emergency Department providers with clinical decision support (education, order sets, and feedback) to reduce prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications to adults aged 65 years and older who received a prescription at time of discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)/METHODS:Implementation process components assembled through successive implementation. RESULTS:Each site had clinical and environmental characteristics to be addressed in implementing the EQUIPPED program. We identified 10 process elements and describe lessons for each. Lessons guided the compilation of the EQUIPPED intervention package or toolkit, including the EQUIPPED logic model. CONCLUSIONS:Our academic health system research collaborative addressing medication safety through sequential implementation is a learning health system that can serve as a model for other quality improvement projects with multiple sites. The network produced an implementation package that can be vetted, piloted, evaluated, and finalized for large-scale dissemination in community-based settings.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately with respect to serious consequences ranging from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these issues have focused attention on how these resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies, for example, misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion that disfavors older adults in resource allocation decisions. This is a companion article to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement, "Resource Allocation Strategies and Age-Related Considerations in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond." It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations that should be considered when developing strategies for allocation of scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. This review presents the legal and ethical background for the position statement and discusses these issues that informed the development of the AGS positions: (1) age as a determining factor, (2) age as a tiebreaker, (3) criteria with a differential impact on older adults, (4) individual choices and advance directives, (5) racial/ethnic disparities and resource allocation, and (6) scoring systems and their impact on older adults. It also considers the role of advance directives as expressions of individual preferences in pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1143-1149, 2020.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately, from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these needs have focused attention on how resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion, inappropriately disfavoring older adults. This statement represents the official policy position of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations to consider when developing strategies for allocating scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. Members of the AGS Ethics Committee collaborated with interprofessional experts in ethics, law, nursing, and medicine (including geriatrics, palliative care, emergency medicine, and pulmonology/critical care) to conduct a structured literature review and examine relevant reports. The resulting recommendations defend a particular view of distributive justice that maximizes relevant clinical factors and deemphasizes or eliminates factors placing arbitrary, disproportionate weight on advanced age. The AGS positions include (1) avoiding age per se as a means for excluding anyone from care; (2) assessing comorbidities and considering the disparate impact of social determinants of health; (3) encouraging decision makers to focus primarily on potential short-term (not long-term) outcomes; (4) avoiding ancillary criteria such as "life-years saved" and "long-term predicted life expectancy" that might disadvantage older people; (5) forming and staffing triage committees tasked with allocating scarce resources; (6) developing institutional resource allocation strategies that are transparent and applied uniformly; and (7) facilitating appropriate advance care planning. The statement includes recommendations that should be immediately implemented to address resource allocation strategies during COVID-19, aligning with AGS positions. The statement also includes recommendations for post-pandemic review. Such review would support revised strategies to ensure that governments and institutions have equitable emergency resource allocation strategies, avoid future discriminatory language and practice, and have appropriate guidance to develop national frameworks for emergent resource allocation decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1136-1142, 2020.

In 2018, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) began accrediting facilities as "geriatric emergency departments" (EDs) according to adherence to the multiorganizational guidelines published in 2014. The guidelines were developed to help every ED improve its care of older adults. The geriatric ED guideline recommendations span the care continuum from out-of-hospital care, ED staffing, protocols, infrastructure, and transitions to outpatient care. Hospitals interested in making their EDs more geriatric friendly thus face the challenge of adopting, adapting, and implementing extensive guideline recommendations in a cost-effective manner and within the capabilities of their facilities and staff. Because all innovation is at heart local and must function within the constraints of local resources, different hospital systems have developed implementation processes for the geriatric ED guidelines according to their differing institutional capabilities and resources. This article describes 4 geriatric ED models of care to provide practical examples and guidance for institutions considering developing geriatric EDs: a geriatric ED-specific unit, geriatrics practitioner models, geriatric champions, and geriatric-focused observation units. The advantages and limitations of each model are compared and examples of specific institutions and their operational metrics are provided.