Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Older adults constitute a large and growing proportion of the population and have unique care needs in the emergency department (ED) setting. The geriatric ED accreditation program aims to improve emergency care provided to older adults by standardizing care provided across accredited geriatric EDs (GED) and through implementation of geriatric-specific care processes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate select care processes at accredited level 1 and level 2 GEDs. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:selected five GED care processes for analysis: initiatives related to delirium, screening for dementia, assessment of function and functional decline, geriatric falls, and minimizing medication-related adverse events. For all protocols, a trained research assistant abstracted information on the tool used or care process, which patients received the interventions, and staff members were involved in the care process; additional information was abstracted specific to individual care processes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 35 level 1 and 2 GEDs were included in this analysis. Among care processes studied, geriatric falls were the most common (31 GEDs, 89%) followed by geriatric pain management (25 GEDs, 71%), minimizing the use of potentially inappropriate medications (24 EDs, 69%), delirium (22 GEDs, 63%), medication reconciliation (21 GEDs, 60%), functional assessment (20 GEDs, 57%), and dementia screening (17 GEDs, 49%). For protocols related to delirium, dementia, function, and geriatric falls, sites used an array of different screening tools and there was heterogeneity in who performed the screening and which patients were assessed. Medication reconciliation protocols leveraged pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and/or nurses. Protocols on avoiding potentially inappropriate medication administration generally focused on ED administration of medications and used the BEERs criteria, and few sites indicated whether pain medications protocols had dosing modifications for age and/or renal function. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This study provides a snapshot of care processes implemented in level 1 and level 2 accredited GEDs and demonstrates significant heterogeny in how these care processes are implemented.

OBJECTIVES:Early presentation and workup for acute infectious (IE) and autoimmune encephalitis (AE) are similar. This study aims to identify routine laboratory markers at presentation that are associated with IE or AE. METHODS:This was a multi-center retrospective study at three tertiary care hospitals in New York City analyzing demographic and clinical data from patients diagnosed with definitive encephalitis based on a confirmed pathogen and/or autoantibody and established criteria for clinical syndromes. RESULTS:Three hundred and thirty-three individuals with confirmed acute meningoencephalitis were included. An infectious-nonbacterial (NB) pathogen was identified in 151/333 (45.40%), bacterial pathogen in 95/333 (28.50%), and autoantibody in 87/333 (26.10%). NB encephalitis was differentiated from AE by the presence of fever (NB 62.25%, AE 24.10%; p < 0.001), higher CSF white blood cell (WBC) (median 78 cells/μL, 8.00 cells/μL; p < 0.001), higher CSF protein (76.50 mg/dL, 40.90 mg/dL; p < 0.001), lower CSF glucose (58.00 mg/dL, 69.00 mg/dL; p < 0.001), lower serum WBC (7.80 cells/μL, 9.72 cells/μL; p < 0.050), higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (19.50 mm/HR, 13.00 mm/HR; p < 0.05), higher C-reactive protein (6.40 mg/L, 1.25 mg/L; p = 0.005), and lack of antinuclear antibody titers (>1:40; NB 11.54%, AE 32.73%; p < 0.001). CSF-to-serum WBC ratio was significantly higher in NB compared to AE (NB 11.3, AE 0.99; p < 0.001). From these findings, the association of presenting with fever, CSF WBC ≥50 cells/μL, and CSF protein ≥75 mg/dL was explored in ruling-out AE. When all three criteria are present, an AE was found to be highly unlikely (sensitivity 92%, specificity 75%, negative predictive value 95%, and positive predictive value 64%). INTERPRETATIONS:Specific paraclinical data at initial presentation may risk stratify which patients have an IE versus AE.

This study cross-validated the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample and examined its accuracy for identifying invalid neuropsychological performance using a known-groups design. Cross-sectional data from 129 clinical patients who completed the MSVT were examined. Validity groups were established using six, independent criterion performance validity tests, which yielded 98 patients in the valid group and 31 in the invalid group. All MSVT subtest scores were significantly lower in the invalid group (η

OBJECTIVE:This cross-sectional study examined accuracy of traditional Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) validity indicators, including immediate recognition (IR), delayed recognition (DR), and consistency (CNS), as well as a novel indicator derived from the mean performance on IR, DR, and CNS across verbal, visual, and combined learning and memory impairment bands. METHOD/METHODS:A sample of 180 adult outpatients was divided into valid (n = 150) and invalid (n = 30) groups based on results of four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal and visual learning and recall were classified as indicative of no impairment, mild impairment, or severe impairment based on performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, respectively. RESULTS:In general, individual MSVT subtests were able to accurately classify performance as valid or invalid, even in the context of severe learning and memory deficits. However, as verbal and visual memory impairment increased, optimal MSVT cut-scores diverged from manual-specified cutoffs such that DR and CNS required cut-scores to be lowered to maintain adequate specificity. By contrast, the newly proposed scoring algorithm generally showed more robust psychometric properties across the memory impairment bands. CONCLUSIONS:The mean performance index, a novel scoring algorithm using the mean of the three primary MSVT subtests, may be a more robust validity indicator than the individual MSVT subtests in the context of bona fide memory impairment.

The utility of the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) as a performance validity test (PVT) has been primarily established using response accuracy scores. However, the degree to which response latency may contribute to accurate classification of performance invalidity over and above accuracy scores remains understudied. Therefore, this study investigated whether combining VSVT accuracy and response latency scores would increase predictive utility beyond use of accuracy scores alone. Data from a mixed clinical sample of 163 patients, who were administered the VSVT as part of a larger neuropsychological battery, were analyzed. At least four independent criterion PVTs were used to establish validity groups (121 valid/42 invalid). Logistic regression models examining each difficulty level revealed that all VSVT measures were useful in classifying validity groups, both independently and when combined. Individual predictor classification accuracy ranged from 77.9 to 81.6%, indicating acceptable to excellent discriminability across the validity indices. The results of this study support the value of both accuracy and latency scores on the VSVT to identify performance invalidity, although the accuracy scores had superior classification statistics compared to response latency, and mean latency indices provided no unique benefit for classification accuracy beyond dimensional accuracy scores alone.

The Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) is a collateral-report measure of difficulties in activities of daily living. Despite its widespread use, psychometric analyses have been limited in scope, piecemeal across samples, and limited primarily to classical test theory. This article consolidated and expanded psychometric analyses using tools from generalizability and item response theories among 27,916 individuals from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center database who completed the FAQ. Reliability was evaluated with internal consistency, test-retest, and generalizability analyses. Validity was assessed via convergence with neurocognitive measures, classification accuracy with impairment stage, and confirmatory factor and item response theory analyses. Demographics did not impact scores and there was strong evidence for reliability (0.52-0.95), though coefficients were attenuated when restricted in range to diagnostic groups (e.g., normal cognition). There were strong correlations with neurocognitive measures (rs: -.30 to -.59), strong classification accuracy (areas under the curve: .81-.99), and a single-factor model had excellent fit. All items evidenced strong item response theory discrimination and provided significant information regarding functional disability, albeit within a relatively restricted range. The FAQ is a reliable and valid measure of activities of daily living concerns for use in clinical/research settings. It best assesses mild levels of functional difficulty, which is helpful in distinguishing normal cognition from mild cognitive impairment and dementia.

The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Forced Choice Recognition (FC) and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Recognition Discrimination Index (RD) are embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) assessing material-specific neuropsychological processes (i.e., verbal and visual memory, respectively). Prior research demonstrated the utility of these PVTs independently; however, no study has compared their diagnostic accuracy for identifying invalid performance relative to each other and in combination within a single sample. This cross-sectional study included an adult neuropsychiatric sample who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Validity groups were determined via independent criterion PVT performance, and consisted of 103 participants with valid and 25 with invalid neurocognitive performance. FC and RD were not significantly correlated (r = .154), yet both differed between validity groups (η_p