Faculty Bibliography

In December 2017, the National Academy of Neuropsychology convened an interorganizational Summit on Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients in Denver, Colorado. The Summit brought together representatives of a broad range of stakeholders invested in the care of older adults to focus on the topic of cognitive health and aging. Summit participants specifically examined questions of who should be screened for cognitive impairment and how they should be screened in medical settings. This is important in the context of an acute illness given that the presence of cognitive impairment can have significant implications for care and for the management of concomitant diseases as well as pose a major risk factor for dementia. Participants arrived at general principles to guide future screening approaches in medical populations and identified knowledge gaps to direct future research. Key learning points of the summit included: recognizing the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the value of assessing current and baseline cognition; emphasizing that any screening tool must be appropriately normalized and validated in the population in which it is used to obtain accurate information, including considerations of language, cultural factors, and education; and recognizing the great potential, with appropriate caveats, of electronic health records to augment cognitive screening and tracking of changes in cognitive health over time. Summit Participants Deb Adler¹, Christopher Alban, MD, MBA², Mark Bondi, PhD³, Michelle Braun, PhD⁴, Xavier Cagigas, PhD⁵, Morgan Daven⁶, Robert L. Denney, PsyD^7,8, Lisa Drozdick, PhD⁹, Norman L. Foster, MD^10,11, Ula Hwang, MD^12–15, Laurie Ivey, PsyD¹⁶, Grant Iverson, PhD^7,17, Joel Kramer, PsyD¹⁸, Laura Lacritz, PhD^7,19, Melinda Lantz, MD²⁰, Lisa Latts, MD, MSPH, MBA²¹, Shari M. Ling, MD²², Ana Maria Lopez, MD^23–26, Michael Malone, MD^27,28, Lori Martin-Plank, PhD, MSN, MSPH, RN²⁹, Katie Maslow, MSW³⁰, Don Melady, MSc(Ed), MD^31–33, Melissa Messer³⁴, John Meyers, PsyD⁷, Charles E. McConnel, PhD¹⁹, Randi Most, PhD³⁶, Margaret P. Norris, PhD³⁷, William Perry, PhD^7,85,39, Neil Pliskin, PhD⁴⁰, David Shafer, MBA⁴¹, Nina Silverberg, PhD⁴², Tresa Roebuck-Spencer, PhD^43,44, Colin M. Thomas, MD, MPH⁴⁵, Laura Thornhill, JD⁴⁶, Jean Tsai, MD, PhD^10,47, Nirav Vakharia, MD⁴⁸, Martin Waters, MSW⁴⁹ Organizations Represented Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, IL AMA/CPT Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee, Chicago, IL American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), Ann Arbor, MI American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Minneapolis, MN American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP), McLean, VA American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP), Austin, TX American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABN), Sarasota, FL American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), Philadelphia, PA American College of Physicians (ACP), Philadelphia, PA American Geriatrics Society (AGS), New York, NY American Psychological Association (APA), Washington, DC Beacon Health Options, Boston, MA Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Ottawa, ON, Canada Collaborative Family Healthcare Association (CFHA), Rochester, New York Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC Hispanic Neuropsychological Society (HNS), Los Angeles, CA IBM Watson Health, Denver, CO International Federation of Emergency Medicine, West Melbourne, Australia International Neuropsychological Society (INS), Salt Lake City, UT National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), Denver, CO Optum of UnitedHealth Group, Minneapolis, MN Pearson, New York City, New York Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc, Lutz, FL Society for Clinical Neuropsychology, Washington, DC U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC *Please note that participation in the Summit does not constitute organizational endorsement of this report

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of an emergency department (ED)-based transitional care nurse (TCN) on hospital use. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective observational cohort. SETTING/METHODS:Three U.S. (NY, IL, NJ) EDs from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2015. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Individuals aged 65 and older in the ED (N = 57,287). INTERVENTION/METHODS:The intervention was first TCN contact. Controls never saw a TCN during the study period. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:We examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with TCN use and outcomes. The primary outcome was inpatient admission during the index ED visit (admission on Day 0). Secondary outcomes included cumulative 30-day admission (any admission on Days 0-30) and 72-hour ED revisits. RESULTS:A TCN saw 5,930 (10%) individuals, 42% of whom were admitted. After accounting for observed selection bias using entropy balance, results showed that when compared to controls, TCN contact was associated with lower risk of admission (site 1: -9.9% risk of inpatient admission, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.3% to -7.5%; site 2: -16.5%, 95% CI = -18.7% to -14.2%; site 3: -4.7%, 95% CI = -7.5% to -2.0%). Participants with TCN contact had greater risk of a 72-hour ED revisit at two sites (site 1: 1.5%, 95% CI = 0.7-2.3%; site 2: 1.4%, 95% CI = 0.7-2.1%). Risk of any admission within 30 days of the index ED visit also remained lower for TCN patients at both these sites (site 1: -7.8%, 95% CI = -10.3% to -5.3%; site 2: -13.8%, 95% CI = -16.1% to -11.6%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Targeted evaluation by geriatric ED transitions of care staff may be an effective delivery innovation to reduce risk of inpatient admission.

OBJECTIVES:To identify differences in emergency department (ED) pain-care based on the type of fracture sustained and to examine whether fracture type may influence the more aggressive analgesic use previously demonstrated in older patients. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Five EDs (four academic, one community) in the United States. PARTICIPANTS:Patients (1,664) who presented in January, March, July, and October 2009 with a final diagnosis of fracture (774 long bone [LBF], 890 shorter bone [SBF]). MEASUREMENTS:Primary-predictor was type of fracture (LBF vs. SBF). Pain-care process outcomes included likelihood of analgesic administration, opioid-dose, and time to first analgesic. General estimating equations were used to control for age, gender, race, baseline pain score, triage acuity, comorbidities and ED crowding. Subgroup analyses were conducted to analyze age-based differences in pain care by fracture type. RESULTS:A larger proportion of patients with LBF (30%) were older (>65 years old) compared to SBF (13%). Compared with SBF, patients with LBF were associated with greater likelihood of analgesic-administration (OR = 2.03; 95 CI = 1.58 to 2.62; P  < 0.001) and higher opioid-doses (parameter estimate = 0.268; 95 CI = 0.239 to 0.297; P  < 0.001). When LBF were examined separately, older-patients had a trend to longer analgesic wait-times (99 [55-163] vs. 76 [35-149] minutes, P  = 0.057), but no other differences in process outcomes were found. CONCLUSION:Long bone fractures were associated with more aggressive pain care than SBF. When fracture types were examined separately, older patients did not appear to receive more aggressive pain care. This difference should be accounted for in further research.

BACKGROUND:Emergency department (ED) clinicians often lack training and resources to conduct advance care planning (ACP) conversations. The use of technology for health education is increasing, yet little is known if it can be used to engage older ED patients in ACP. OBJECTIVE:To determine the feasibility of using tablets to provide ACP education ( www.prepareforyourcare.org )(PREPARE) to older ED patients. DESIGN:A feasibility study conducted in late 2014 and early 2015. SETTING/SUBJECTS:Subjects were recruited from a parent cohort of older adults enrolled in a survey about Geriatric ED care. Inclusion criteria were ≥65 years age and English speaking; exclusions were hearing or vision impairment or if clinically unstable. MEASUREMENTS:Primary outcome was completion of ≥1 of 5 PREPARE modules. Secondary outcomes were ease of use (10-point scale; 1 = very hard, 10 = very easy) and the reasons for refusal to participate. RESULTS:Sixty-one subjects were approached; 24 (39%) were interested in viewing PREPARE after the Geriatric ED survey. Mean age was 75 years (standard deviation [SD] 9); 67% were female and 54% were nonwhite. Seventy-one percent of participants completed ≥1 module. Participants rated the website as easy to use for themselves (mean 8.4, SD 2.39) and for others (mean 7.3, SD 2.31). Of the subjects who declined, top reasons cited were fatigue (26%), already feeling prepared (13%), and technology limitations (11%). CONCLUSION:PREPARE has the potential to engage older adults who are not acutely ill in ACP during their ED visits. Further studies should explore optimal approaches for ED implementation.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE/OBJECTIVE:Clinical decision support (CDS) may improve prescribing for older adults in the Emergency Department (ED) if adopted by providers. INITIAL ASSESSMENT/METHODS:Existing prescribing order entry processes were mapped at an initial Veterans Administration Medical Center site, demonstrating cognitive burden, effort and safety concerns. CHOICE OF SOLUTION/METHODS:Geriatric order sets incorporating 2012 Beers guidelines and including geriatric prescribing advice and prepopulated order options were developed. IMPLEMENTATION/METHODS:Geriatric order sets were implemented at two sites as part of the multicomponent 'Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Veterans Discharged from the Emergency Department' quality improvement initiative. EVALUATION/RESULTS:Facilitators and barriers to order sets use at the two sites were evaluated. Phone interviews were conducted with two provider groups (n = 20), those 'EQUiPPED' with the interventions (n = 10, 5 at each site) and Comparison providers who were only exposed to order sets through a clickable option on the ED order menu within the patient's medical record (n = 10, 5 at each site). All providers were asked about order set 'use' and 'usefulness'. Users (n = 11) were asked about 'usability'. LESSONS LEARNED/CONCLUSIONS:Order set adopters described 'usefulness' in terms of 'safety' and 'efficiency', whereas order set consultants and order set non-users described 'usefulness' in terms of 'information' or 'training'. Provider 'autonomy', 'comfort' level with existing tools, and 'learning curve' were stated as barriers to use. CONCLUSIONS:Quantifying efficiency advantages and communicating safety benefit over preexisting practices and tools may improve adoption of CDS in ED and in other settings of care.

EQUiPPED is a multicomponent quality improvement initiative combining education, electronic clinical decision support, and individual provider feedback to influence prescribing and improve medication safety for older adults. The objective here was to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of EQUiPPED to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), as defined by the American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria, prescribed to older Veterans at the time of emergency department (ED) discharge. This evaluation represents a pre- and post-intervention comparison of PIM prescriptions at 4 urban Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center EDs. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of PIMs prescribed to Veterans 65 years or older discharged from the ED for at least 6 months prior to the first EQUiPPED intervention at each site and for at least 12 months following the final EQUiPPED intervention. The implementation timeline varied by site depending on local resources. All 4 sites showed a significant and sustained reduction in use of PIMs. The proportion of PIMs at site one decreased from 11.9% (SD 1.8) pre-EQUiPPED to 5.1% (SD 1.4) post-EQUiPPED (P < .0001); site 2 from 8.2% (SD 0.8) pre to 4.5% (SD 1.0) post (P < .0001); site 3 from 8.9% (SD 1.9) pre to 6.1% (SD 1.7) post (P = .0007); and site 4 from 7.4% (SD 1.7) pre to 5.7% (SD 0.8) post (P = .04). These results suggest a multicomponent program to influence provider prescribing behavior leads to safer prescribing for older adults discharged from the ED and is sustainable across multiple VA ED sites.

BACKGROUND:An emergency department (ED) visit may be distressing and anxiety-provoking for older adults (age > 65 years). No studies have specifically evaluated the effect of music listening on anxiety in older adults in the ED. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of music listening on anxiety levels in older ED patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:This was a randomized pilot study in the geriatric ED of an urban academic tertiary medical center. This was a sample of English-speaking adults (age > 65 years) who were not deaf (n = 35). Subjects consented to participate and were randomized to receive up to 60 min of music listening with routine care, while the control group received routine care with no music. Subjects in the music treatment group received headphones and an electronic tablet with pre-downloaded music, and were allowed to choose from 5 selections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcome was change in anxiety levels, measured by the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI), at enrollment and 1 h later. RESULTS:A total of 35 participants were enrolled: 74% were female, 40% were white, and 40% were black; of these, 32 subjects completed the study protocol. When comparing control (n = 18) against intervention subjects (n = 17), there were no significant differences in enrollment STAI scores (43.00 ± 15.00 vs. 40.30 ± 12.80, P = 0.57). STAI scores 1 hour after enrollment (after the music intervention) were significantly reduced in the intervention subjects compared to the control subjects (with reduction of 10.00 ± 12.29 vs. 1.88 ± 7.97, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:These pilot results suggest that music listening may be an effective tool for reducing anxiety among older adults in the ED.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare pain relief between patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (USFNB). DESIGN/METHODS:A multicenter, prospective, randomized, clinical trial. SETTING/METHODS:The study was conducted in the emergency departments of 3 academic hospitals located in New York City. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Patients aged ≥60 years presenting to the emergency department with hip fracture. METHODS:A subgroup analysis from a larger data set was conducted of patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an USFNB. We compared pain scores at baseline and then at 2 and 3 hours after the nerve block was performed, and also assessed pain relief at 2 and 3 hours. RESULTS:Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive USFNB, of which 68 had follow-up data at 2 and 3 hours and were included in the data analysis. Thirty-one were diagnosed with intracapsular and 37 with extracapsular hip fractures. In both groups, reductions in pain scores were clinically and statistically significant. In the intracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.23 to 3.81 (P < .0001) at 2 hours and from 6.23 to 3.87 (P < .0001) at 3 hours. In the extracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.62 to 3.89 (P < .0001) at 2 hours and from 6.62 to 3.46 (P < .0001) at 3 hours. These differences were similar between the extracapsular and intracapsular groups at 2 hours (P = .92) and at 3 hours (P = .58), thus demonstrating similar reductions in pain in the 2 groups. The differences in pain relief between the intracapsular and extracapsular groups were also similar: 1.61 (confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.08) vs 1.35 (CI, 0.96-1.75) at 2 hours (P = .39) and 1.68 (CI, 1.21-2.15) vs 1.38 (CI, 0.89-1.87) at 3 hours (P = .38). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block was equally effective in reducing pain for patients with both intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures.

OBJECTIVES:Emergency departments (EDs) commonly analyze cases of patients returning within 72 hours of initial ED discharge as potential opportunities for quality improvement. In this study, we tested the use of a health information exchange (HIE) to improve identification of 72-hour return visits compared to individual hospitals' site-specific data. METHODS:We collected deidentified patient data over a 5-year study period from Healthix, an HIE in the New York metropolitan area. We measured site-specific 72-hour ED returns and compared these data to those obtained from a regional 31-site HIE (Healthix) and to those from a smaller, antecedent 11-site HIE. Although only ED visits were counted as index visits, either ED or inpatient revisits within 72 hours of the index visit were considered as early returns. RESULTS:A total of 12,669,657 patient encounters were analyzed across the 31 HIE EDs, including 6,352,829 encounters from the antecedent 11-site HIE. Site-specific 72-hour return visit rates ranged from 1.1% to 15.2% (median = 5.8%) among the individual 31 sites. When the larger HIE was used to identify return visits to any site, individual EDs had a 72-hour return frequency of 1.8% to 15.5% (median = 6.8%). HIE increased the identification ability of 72-hour ED return analyses by a mean of 11.16% (95% confidence interval = 11.10% to 11.22%) compared with site-specific (no HIE) analyses. CONCLUSION:This analysis demonstrates incremental improvements in our ability to identify early ED returns using increasing levels of HIE data aggregation. Although intuitive, this has not been previously described using HIE. ED quality measurement and patient safety efforts may be aided by using HIE in 72-hour return analyses.