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.

Examination of geriatric care processes implemented in level 1 and level 2 geriatric emergency departments.

Introduction: 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: This was a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of level 1 and level 2 GEDs that received accreditation between May 7, 2018 and March 1, 2021. We a priori 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: 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: 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.