Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY 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: 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.

Core requirements of frailty screening in the emergency department: an international Delphi consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study. METHODS: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors. RESULTS: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include. CONCLUSIONS: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.

The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) and emergency department observation and admission rates: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) Observation Units (OU) can provide safe, effective care for low risk patients with intracranial hemorrhages. We compared current ED OU use for patients with subdural hematomas (SDH) to the validated Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) to evaluate the potential impact of implementing this risk stratification tool. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients ≥18 years old with SDH of any cause from 2014 to 2020 to evaluate for potential missed OU cases. Missed OU cases were defined as patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 15 with hospital length of stays (LOS) <2 days, who did not meet the composite outcome and were not cared for in the OU or discharged from the ED. Composite outcome included in-hospital death or transition to hospice care, neurosurgical intervention, GCS decline, and worsening SDH size. Secondary outcomes were whether application of BIG would increase ED OU use or reduce CT use. RESULTS: 264 patients met inclusion criteria over 5.3 year study timeframe. Mean age was 61 years (range 19-93) and 61.4% were male. SDH were traumatic in 76.9% and 60.2% of the cohort had additional injuries. The admission rate was 81.4% (n = 215). Fourteen (6.5%) missed OU cases were identified (2.6/year). Retrospective application of BIG resulted in 82.6% (n = 217) at BIG 3, 10.2% (n = 27) at BIG 2 and 7.6% (n = 20) at BIG 1. Application of BIG would not have decreased admission rates (82.6% BIG 3) and BIG 1 and 2 admissions were often for medical co-morbidities. The composite outcome was met in 50% of BIG 3, 22% of BIG 2, and no BIG 1 patients. CONCLUSION: In a level 1 trauma center with an established observation unit, current clinical care processes missed very few patients who could be discharged or placed in ED OU for SDH. Hospital admissions in BIG 1/2 were driven by co-morbidities and/or injuries, limiting applicability of BIG to this population.

Involuntary sedation of patients in the emergency department for mental health: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary sedation of agitated mental health patients in the Emergency Department (ED) is standard practice to obtain accurate medical assessments and maintain safety. However, the rate of this practice and what factors are associated with the use of involuntary sedation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to obtain baseline data on involuntary sedation in our EDs. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients with ED visits for mental health care in 2020-2021. Patients >12 years old who received both a psychiatry consultation and involuntary sedation were included. Data variables included demographics, medical and mental health diagnoses, sedatives given, substance use, ED length of stay, and disposition. The primary outcome was repeated involuntary sedation. RESULTS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of the mental health patients screened for study inclusion. 334 patients were included in the study cohort and 31.6% (n = 106) required repeated involuntary sedation. Their average age was 35.5 ± 13.5 years with 58.4% men, 40.1% women, and 1.2% transgender persons. Most (90.0%, n = 299) had prior mental health diagnoses with the most common being substance use disorder (38.9%, n = 130), bipolar disorder (34.1%, n = 114), depressive disorder (29.0%, n = 97), and schizophrenia (24.3%, n = 81). Two-thirds (65.9%, n = 220) had current substance use and 41.9% (n = 142) reported current use with a chemical associated with aggression. Hospital security was called for 73.1% (n = 244). Current cocaine, methamphetamines, or alcohol use was associated with decreased odds of repeated sedation (0.52 OR, 95% CI 0.32-0.85). Prior mental health diagnosis and non-white race were associated with increased odds of repeated sedation. In the multivariable regression, the effect of race was more significant. CONCLUSIONS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of ED patients for mental health care and almost a third were repeatedly sedated, with race being a potential risk factor for repeated sedation. ED care could benefit from evidence-based interventions to reduce the need for involuntary sedation.

Impact of a trauma recovery center on emergency department utilization for victims of violence.

BACKGROUND: Victims of violence are at high risk for unmet mental and physical health care needs which can translate into increased Emergency Department (ED) visits. We investigated the effectiveness of participation in a psychosocial, case management-based trauma recovery program on ED utilization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of ED utilization before and after referral to a Trauma Recovery Center (TRC). Charts of TRC participants from 6/2017-5/2019 who consented in clinic to their medical records being used for research were reviewed. The primary outcome was the change in ED utilization 6 months pre- and post-referral to a TRC. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with ED visits after TRC referral, including victimization or mental health issues. RESULTS: The study group contained 143 patients, of which 82% identified as female and 62% identified as white. Many (39%, n = 56) were part of one or more vulnerable populations and type of victimization varied extensively. Intervention uptake was high as almost all (92%, n = 132) had at least one TRC encounter [median of 6 encounters (IQR 2-13)] and an average of 2.7 services used. Most participants (67.1%, n = 96) had no change in ED use. Forty (28.0%) had at least 1 ED visit 6 months before, 38 (26.8%) had at least 1 ED visit 6 months afterwards, and 81 (56.6%) had no ED visits during either timeframe. ED visits per person in the 6 months prior to referral were not different from visits per person in the 6 months after referral (0.52 vs 0.49, p = 0.76, paired t-test). Negative binomial regression indicated number of ED visits before referral (IRR 1.5, 95% confidence interval [1.27-1.79]) and pre-existing mental health conditions (IRR 2.2, 95% confidence interval [0.98-5.02]) were most associated with an increase in the incidence rate ratio of ED visits in the 6 months after referral. CONCLUSION: Despite high engagement, a multidisciplinary Trauma Recovery Center did not reduce ED utilization. ED utilization prior to TRC was the most predictive factor of ED utilization afterwards.

Reach and Adoption of a Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation Program in the United States.

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.

Procalcitonin-Guided Use of Antibiotics for Lower Respiratory Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: The effect of procalcitonin-guided use of antibiotics on treatment for suspected lower respiratory tract infection is unclear. METHODS: In 14 U.S. hospitals with high adherence to quality measures for the treatment of pneumonia, we provided guidance for clinicians about national clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and the interpretation of procalcitonin assays. We then randomly assigned patients who presented to the emergency department with a suspected lower respiratory tract infection and for whom the treating physician was uncertain whether antibiotic therapy was indicated to one of two groups: the procalcitonin group, in which the treating clinicians were provided with real-time initial (and serial, if the patient was hospitalized) procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic use guideline with graded recommendations based on four tiers of procalcitonin levels, or the usual-care group. We hypothesized that within 30 days after enrollment the total antibiotic-days would be lower - and the percentage of patients with adverse outcomes would not be more than 4.5 percentage points higher - in the procalcitonin group than in the usual-care group. RESULTS: A total of 1656 patients were included in the final analysis cohort (826 randomly assigned to the procalcitonin group and 830 to the usual-care group), of whom 782 (47.2%) were hospitalized and 984 (59.4%) received antibiotics within 30 days. The treating clinician received procalcitonin assay results for 792 of 826 patients (95.9%) in the procalcitonin group (median time from sample collection to assay result, 77 minutes) and for 18 of 830 patients (2.2%) in the usual-care group. In both groups, the procalcitonin-level tier was associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics in the emergency department. There was no significant difference between the procalcitonin group and the usual-care group in antibiotic-days (mean, 4.2 and 4.3 days, respectively; difference, -0.05 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.5; P=0.87) or the proportion of patients with adverse outcomes (11.7% [96 patients] and 13.1% [109 patients]; difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 1.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority) within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of procalcitonin assay results, along with instructions on their interpretation, to emergency department and hospital-based clinicians did not result in less use of antibiotics than did usual care among patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02130986 .).

Concepts in Practice: Geriatric Emergency Departments.

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.

Incorporation of a patient navigator into a secondary fracture prevention program identifies barriers to patient care.

INTRODUCTION: Patient navigation improves outcomes in various clinical contexts, but has not been evaluated in secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients, age 50 + from April to October, 2016 hospitalized with fragility fracture contacted by a patient navigator. Patients were identified using an electronic tool extracting data from electronic medical records which alerted the patient navigator to contact patients by phone post-discharge to schedule appointments to "High-Risk Osteoporosis Clinic" (HiROC) and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scan. Primary outcome was transition from hospital to HiROC. We also compared completion of DXA, five osteoporosis-associated in-hospital laboratory tests (calcium, 25-hydroxy vitamin D, complete blood count, renal, and liver function), osteoporosis medication prescription and adherence, and other patient characteristics to historical controls (2014-2015) without patient navigation. Comparisons were made using Chi-square, Fisher's Exact, two-sample t test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The proportion of patients transitioning to HiROC with and without patient navigation was not different (53% vs. 48%, p = 0.483), but DXA scan completion was higher (90% vs. 67%, p = 0.006). No difference in medication initiation within 3 months post discharge (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.387) or adherence at 6 months (68% vs. 71%, p = 0.777) was found. Patients attending HiROC lived closer (11 vs. 43 miles, p < 0.001) and more likely to follow-up in surgery clinic (95% vs. 61%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient navigation did not improve transition to HiROC. Longer travel distance may be a barrier-unaffected by patient navigation. Identifying barriers may inform best practices for Fracture Liaison Service programs.

A National Dataset Analysis of older adults in emergency department observation units.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) Observation Units (Obs Units) are prevalent in the US, but little is known regarding older adults in observation. Our objective was to describe the Obs Units nationally and observation patients with specific attention to differences in care with increasing age. DESIGN: This is an analysis of 2010-2013 data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a national observational cohort study including ED patients. Weighted means are presented for continuous data and weighted percent for categorical data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with placement in and admission from observation. RESULTS: The number of adult ED visits varied from 100 million to 107 million per year and 2.3% of patients were placed in observation. Adults ≥65 years old made up a disproportionate number of Obs Unit patients, 30.6%, compared to only 19.7% of total ED visits (odds ratio 1.5 (95% CI 1.5-1.6), adjusting for sex, race, month, day of week, payer source, and hospital region). The overall admission rate from observation was 35.6%, ranging from 31.3% for ages 18-64 years to 47.5% for adults ≥85 years old (p < 0.001). General symptoms (e.g., nausea, dizziness) and hypertensive disease were the most common diagnoses overall. Older adults varied from younger adults in that they were frequently observed for diseases of the urinary system (ICD-9 590-599) and metabolic disorders (ICD-9 270-279). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are more likely to be cared for in Obs Units. Older adults are treated for different medical conditions than younger adults.

The feasibility of an inter-professional transitions of care service in an older adult population.

BACKGROUND: Older adults discharged from the Emergency Department (ED) are at high risk for medication interactions and side effects; examples of practice models addressing this transition of care are lacking. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study for adults in one of two urban community EDs. Patients ≥50 years of age discharged with at least one new, non-schedule II prescription medication were included. Patients had the option of three transitions of care services: 1) pharmacist-only with home delivery of discharge medications and full medication reconciliation, 2) pharmacist and home health care, including home delivery, medication reconciliation, and a visit from a home health nurse, or 3) either of the above without home delivery. RESULTS: Over seven months, 440 ED patients were screened. Of those, 43 patients were eligible, and three patients elected to join the study. All three patients selected pharmacy-only. Identified barriers to enrollment include the rate of schedule II prescriptions from the ED (53% of potential patients) and high patient loyalty to their community pharmacist. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacy and home health care transitions of care program was not feasible at an urban community ED. While the pharmacist team identified and managed multiple medication issues, most patients did not qualify due to prescriptions ineligible for delivery. Patients did not want pharmacist or home health nurse involvement in their post ED visit care, many due to loyalty to their community pharmacy. Multiple barriers must be addressed to create a successful inter-professional transition of care model.

Beyond observation: Protocols and capabilities of an Emergency Department Observation Unit.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency Department Observation Units (Obs Units) provide a setting and a mechanism for further care of Emergency Department (ED) patients. Our hospital has a protocol-driven, type 1, complex 20 bed Obs Unit with 36 different protocols. We wanted to understand how the different protocols performed and what types of care were provided. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, retrospective chart review study. A random 10% of ED patient charts with a "transfer to observation" order were selected monthly from October 2015 through June 2017. This database was designed to identify high and low functioning protocols based on length of stays (LOS) and admission rates. RESULTS: Over 20 months, a total of 984 patients qualified for the study. The average age was 49.5 ±â€¯17.2 years, 57.3% were women, and 32.3% were non-Caucasian. The admission rate was 23.5% with an average LOS in observation of 13.7 h [95% CI 13.3-14.1]. Thirty day return rate was 16.8% with 5.3% of the patients returning to the ED within the first 72 h. Thirty six different protocols were used, with the most common being chest pain (13.9%) and general (13.2%). Almost 70% received a consultation from another service, and 7.2% required a procedure while in observation. Procedures included fluoroscopic-guided lumbar punctures, endoscopies, dental extractions, and catheter replacements (nephrostomy, gastrostomy, and biliary tubes). CONCLUSIONS: An Obs Unit can care for a wide variety of patients who require multiple consultations, procedures, and care coordination while maintaining an acceptable length of stay and admission rate.

Early geriatric consultation increases adherence to TQIP Geriatric Trauma Management Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons' Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) Geriatric Trauma Management Guidelines recommend geriatric consultation for injured older adults. However it is not known how or whether geriatric consultation improves compliance to these quality measures. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of our institutional trauma databank. Adherence to quality measures was compared before and after implementation of specific triggers for geriatric consultation. Secondary analyses evaluated adherence by service: trauma service (Trauma) or a trauma service with early geriatric consultation (GeriTrauma). RESULTS: The average age of the 245 patients was 76.7 years, 47% were women, and mean Injury Severity Score was 9.5 (SD ±8.1). Implementation of the GeriTrauma collaborative increased geriatric consultation rates from 2% to 48% but had minimal effect on overall adherence to TQIP quality measures. A secondary analysis comparing those in the post implementation group who received geriatric consultation (n = 94) to those who did not (n = 103) demonstrated higher rates of delirium diagnosis (36.2% vs 14.6%, P < 0.01) and better documentation of initial living situation, code status, and medication list in the GeriTrauma group. Physical therapy was consulted more frequently for GeriTrauma patients (95.7% vs 68.0%, P < 0.01) Documented goals of care discussions were rare and difficult to abstract. A subgroup analysis of only patients with fall-related injuries demonstrated similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early geriatric consultation increases adherence to TQIP guidelines. Further research into the long term significance and validity of these geriatric trauma quality indicators is needed.

Are triage questions sufficient to assign fall risk precautions in the ED?

OBJECTIVES: The American College of Emergency Physicians Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines and the Center for Disease Control recommend that older adults be assessed for risk of falls. The standard ED assessment is a verbal query of fall risk factors, which may be inadequate. We hypothesized that the addition of a functional balance test endorsed by the Center for Disease Control Stop Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries Falls Prevention Guidelines, the 4-Stage Balance Test (4SBT), would improve the detection of patients at risk for falls. METHODS: Prospective pilot study of a convenience sample of ambulatory adults 65 years and older in the ED. All participants received the standard nursing triage fall risk assessment. After patients were stabilized in their ED room, the 4SBT was administered. RESULTS: The 58 participants had an average age of 74.1 years (range, 65-94), 40.0% were women, and 98% were community dwelling. Five (8.6%) presented to the ED for a fall-related chief complaint. The nursing triage screen identified 39.7% (n=23) as at risk for falls, whereas the 4SBT identified 43% (n=25). Combining triage questions with the 4SBT identified 60.3% (n=35) as at high risk for falls, as compared with 39.7% (n=23) with triage questions alone (P<.01). Ten (17%) of the patients at high risk by 4SBT and missed by triage questions were inpatients unaware that they were at risk for falls (new diagnoses). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a quick functional test of balance into the ED assessment for fall risk is feasible and significantly increases the detection of older adults at risk for falls.

Pharmacological inhibition of VIP signaling enhances antiviral immunity and improves survival in murine cytomegalovirus-infected allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection following allogeneic bone marrow transplant (allo-BMT) is controlled by donor-derived cellular immunity. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) suppresses Th1 immunity. We hypothesized that blocking VIP-signaling would enhance anti-CMV immunity in murine recipients of allo-BMT. Recipients were transplanted with bone marrow (BM) and T-cells from major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-mismatched VIP-knockout (KO) or wild-type donors, and treated with 7 daily subcutaneous injections of VIPhyb (peptidic VIP-antagonist) or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Genetic and pharmacological blockade of VIP-signaling protected allo-BMT recipients from lethal murine CMV (mCMV) infection, improving survival without increasing graft-versus-host disease. Mice treated with VIPhyb or transplanted with VIP-KO allografts had significantly lower viral loads, increased numbers of mCMV-M45-peptide-MHC-tetramer(+) CD8(+) T-cells, with lower PD-1 expression, and enhanced primary and secondary cellular immune responses after mCMV infection than did PBS-treated mice. These results demonstrate that administration of a VIP antagonist after allo-BMT is a promising safely therapeutic approach to enhance antiviral cellular immunity.

Emergency department recidivism in adults older than 65 years treated for fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Fractures in older adults are a commonly diagnosed injury in the emergency department (ED). We performed a retrospective medical record review to determine the rate of return to the same ED within 72 hours (returns) and the risk factors associated with returning. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of patients at least 65 years old discharged from a large, academic ED with a new diagnosis of upper extremity, lower extremity, or rib fractures was performed. Risk factors analyzed included demographic data, type of fracture, analgesic prescriptions, assistive devices provided, other concurrent injuries, and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). Our primary outcome was return to the ED within 72 hours. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen patients qualified. Most fractures were in the upper extremity (64% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 58%-69%]). Twenty patients (6.3% [95% CI, 3.9%-9.6%]) returned within 72 hours. Most returns (15/20, 75%) were for reasons associated with the fracture itself, such as cast problems and inadequate pain control. Only 3 (<1% of all patients) patients returned for cardiac etiologies. Patients with distal forearm fractures had higher return rates (10.7% vs 4.5%, P = .03), and most commonly returned for cast or splint problems. Age, sex, other injuries, assistive devices, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (median, 1 [interquartile range, 1-2] for both groups) did not predict 72-hour returns. CONCLUSION: Older adults with distal forearm fractures may have more unscheduled health care usage in the first 3 days after fracture diagnosis than older adults with other fracture types. Overall, revisits for cardiac reasons or repeat falls were rare (<1%).

Automating risk stratification for geriatric syndromes in the emergency department.

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.

Pragmatism and feasibility: A qualitative study of experiences implementing and upgrading care in geriatric emergency departments.

Objectives: Implementation and sustainability of new care processes in emergency departments (EDs) is difficult. We describe experiences of implementing geriatric care processes in EDs that upgraded their accreditation level for the Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program. These EDs can provide a model for adopting and sustaining guidelines for evidence-based geriatric care. Methods: We performed qualitative interviews with geriatric ED nurse and physician leaders overseeing their ED's geriatric accreditation processes. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework consisting of a comprehensive set of factors that impact implementation of evidence-based interventions. We used inductive analysis to elucidate key themes from interviews and deductive analysis to map themes onto CFIR constructs. Results: Clinician leaders from 15 of 19 EDs that upgraded accreditation status by March 1, 2023 participated in interviews. Motivations to upgrade accreditation level centered on improving patient care (73%) and achieving recognition (56%). Rationales for choosing specific care processes were more commonly related to feasibility (40%) and ability to integrate the processes into the electronic health record (33%) than to site-specific patient needs (20%). Several common experiences in implementation were identified: (1) financing from the larger health system or philanthropy was crucial; (2) translating the Geriatric ED Guidelines into clinical practice was challenging for clinician leaders; (3) motivational barriers existed among frontline ED staff; (4) longitudinal staff education was needed given frontline ED staff attrition and turnover; and (5) the electronic health record facilitated implementation of geriatric screenings. Conclusions: Geriatric ED accreditation involves significant time, resource allocation, and longitudinal staff commitment. EDs pursuing geriatric accreditation balance aspirations to improve patient care with resource availability to implement new care processes and competing priorities.