A shifting terrain: Understanding the perspectives of walk-in physicians on their roles amid worsening primary care access in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.

Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

Value-based comparison of ambulatory children with respiratory diseases in an emergency department and a walk-in clinic: a retrospective cohort study in Québec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health outcomes and costs given in the emergency department (ED) and walk-in clinics for ambulatory children presenting with acute respiratory diseases. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted from April 2016 to March 2017 in one ED and one walk-in clinic. The ED is a paediatric tertiary care centre, and the clinic has access to lab tests and X-rays. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were children: (1) aged from 2 to 17 years old and (2) discharged home with a diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia or acute asthma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients returning to any ED or clinic within 3 and 7 days of the index visit. The secondary outcome measures were the mean cost of care estimated using time-driven activity-based costing and the incidence of antibiotic prescription for URTI patients. RESULTS: We included 532 children seen in the ED and 201 seen in the walk-in clinic. The incidence of return visits at 3 and 7 days was 20.7% and 27.3% in the ED vs 6.5% and 11.4% in the clinic (adjusted relative risk at 3 days (aRR) (95% CI) 3.17 (1.77 to 5.66) and aRR at 7 days 2.24 (1.46 to 3.44)). The mean cost (95% CI) of care (CAD) at the index visit was $C96.68 (92.62 to 100.74) in the ED vs $C48.82 (45.47 to 52.16) in the clinic (mean difference (95% CI): 46.15 (41.29 to 51.02)). Antibiotic prescription for URTI was less common in the ED than in the clinic (1.5% vs 16.4%; aRR 0.10 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32)). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of return visits and cost of care were significantly higher in the ED, while antibiotic use for URTI was more frequent in the walk-in clinic. These data may help determine which setting offers the highest value to ambulatory children with acute respiratory conditions.

Integration of primary contact physiotherapists in the emergency department for individuals presenting with minor musculoskeletal disorders: Protocol for an economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To compare the average cost of an emergency department (ED) visit for various minor musculoskeletal disorders between two models of care (physiotherapist and ED physician or ED physician alone); 2) To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these two models of care over a 3-month period post-initial visit; and 3) To estimate the ICER of three ED models of care (physiotherapist and ED physician, ED physician alone, physiotherapist alone) over a two-year period. METHODS: Obj.1: The costs incurred by participants in the two groups during their ED visit will be calculated using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) method. These costs will be compared using generalized linear models. Obj. 2: The ICER of the two models will be evaluated over three months via a cost-utility analysis that will combine costs and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life years) using both Health system and Societal perspectives (patient + health system costs). Obj. 3: The 2-year ICER of the three above-mentioned models will be estimated using a mathematical model including a decision tree (0-3 months post-visit) and a Markov model (3-24 months post-visit), also using both Health system and Societal perspectives. Data to answer the three objectives will come from data collected during a randomized clinical trial (n = 78, CHU de Québec)which will be supplemented with data obtained via some of the CHU de Québec administrative databases (nominative data; SIURGE (ED management software), Cristal-Net (patient electronic record), and the ED's pharmacy transactions directory; administrative data: drug costs repository), the literature, and public cost repositories. CONCLUSION: This study will help to determine which model of care is most efficient for the management of individuals who come to the ED with minor musculoskeletal disorders. The increased involvement of various health professionals in the management of patients in the ED paves the way for the development of new avenues of practice and more efficient organization of services.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

Limited evidence that emergency department care is more costly than other outpatient settings for low-acuity conditions: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Caring for patients with low-acuity conditions in Emergency Departments (ED) is often thought to cost more than treating those patients in other ambulatory settings. Understanding the relative cost of care between settings has critical implications for healthcare policy and system design. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of papers comparing the cost of care for low-acuity and ambulatory care sensitive conditions in ED and other outpatient settings. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science for peer reviewed papers, plus Google for grey literature. We conducted duplicate screening and data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies using an adapted SIGN checklist for economic studies. We calculated an unweighted mean charge ratio across studies and summarized our findings in narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: We identified one study comparing costs. 18 studies assessed physician or facility charges, conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, including cohort analyses (5), charge analyses (5), survey (1), and database searches (5) assessing populations ranging from 370 participants to 60 million. Charge ratios ranged from 0.60 to 13.45 with an unweighted mean of 4.20. Most (12) studies were of acceptable quality. CONCLUSION: No studies since 2001 assess the comparative costs of ED versus non-ED care for low-acuity ambulatory conditions. Physician and facility charges for ED care are higher than in other ambulatory settings for low-acuity conditions. Empirical evidence is lacking to support that ED care is more costly than similar care in other ambulatory settings.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La prise en charge des patients souffrant d'affections de faible gravité dans les services d'urgence est souvent considérée comme plus coûteuse que la prise en charge de ces mêmes patients dans d'autres structures ambulatoires. Comprendre le coût relatif des soins entre les différents environnements a des implications cruciales pour la politique des soins de santé et la conception des systèmes. MéTHODES: Nous avons procédé à un examen systématique des documents comparant le coût des soins pour les affections à faible gravité et les affections sensibles aux soins ambulatoires dans les services d'urgence et dans d'autres établissements de soins ambulatoires. Nous avons effectué des recherches dans PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL et Web of Science pour les articles évalués par des pairs, ainsi que dans Google pour la littérature grise. Nous avons procédé à une double sélection et à une extraction des données, ainsi qu'à une évaluation de la qualité des études incluses à l'aide d'une liste de contrôle SIGN adaptée aux études économiques. Nous avons calculé un ratio moyen non pondéré pour l'ensemble des études et avons résumé nos conclusions sous forme de texte et de tableau. RéSULTATS: Nous avons identifié une étude comparant les coûts. 18 études ont évalué les frais des médecins ou des établissements, menées aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et au Canada, y compris des analyses de cohortes (5), des analyses de frais (5), des enquêtes (1) et des recherches dans des bases de données (5) évaluant des populations allant de 370 participants à 60 millions de personnes. Les taux d'imputation allaient de 0,60 à 13,45, avec une moyenne non pondérée de 4,20. La plupart des études (12) étaient de qualité acceptable. CONCLUSION: Depuis 2001, aucune étude n'a évalué les coûts comparatifs des soins aux urgences par rapport aux soins hors urgences pour les affections ambulatoires de faible gravité. Les honoraires des médecins et des établissements pour les soins aux urgences sont plus élevés que dans d'autres structures ambulatoires pour les affections de faible gravité. Il n'existe pas de données empiriques permettant d'affirmer que les soins aux urgences sont plus coûteux que des soins similaires dispensés dans d'autres structures ambulatoires.

Adaptation of time-driven activity-based costing to the evaluation of the efficiency of ambulatory care provided in the emergency department.

Objectives: The aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. Methods: TDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015-2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. Results: Overall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. Conclusions: The greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated-time-based and measured-time-based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Safety assessment of a redirection program using an electronic application for low-acuity patients visiting an emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are operating at or above capacity, which has negative consequences on patients in terms of quality of care and morbi-mortality. Redirection strategies for low-acuity ED patients to primary care practices are usually based on subjective eligibility criteria that sometimes necessitate formal medical assessment. Literature investigating the effect of those interventions is equivocal. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of a redirection process using an electronic clinical support system used by the triage nurse without physician assessment. METHODS: A single cohort observational study was performed in the ED of a level 1 academic trauma center. All low-acuity patients redirected to nearby clinics through a clinical decision support system (February-August 2017) were included. This system uses different sets of medical prerequisites to identify patients eligible to redirection. Data on safety and patient experience were collected through phone questionnaires on day 2 and 10 after ED visit. The primary endpoint was the rate of redirected patients returning to any ED for an unexpected visit within 48 h. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of 7-day return visit and satisfaction rates. RESULTS: A total of 980 redirected low-acuity patients were included over the period: 18 patients (2.8%) returned unexpectedly to an ED within 48 h and 31 patients (4.8%) within 7 days. No hospital admission or death were reported within 7 days following the first ED visit. Among redirected patients, 81% were satisfied with care provided by the clinic staff. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a specific electronic-guided decision support redirection protocol appeared to provide safe deferral to nearby clinics for redirected low-acuity patients. EDs are pivotal elements of the healthcare system pathway and redirection process could represent an interesting tool to improve the care to low-acuity patients.

Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.

Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Costs: The Cost for Patients Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The growth of healthcare spending is a major concern for insurers and governments but also for patients whose health problems may result in costs going beyond direct medical costs. To develop a comprehensive tool to measure direct and indirect costs of a health condition for patients and their families to various outpatient contexts. METHODS: We conducted a content and face validation including results of a systematic review to identify the items related to direct and indirect costs for patients or their families and an online Delphi to determine the cost items to retain. We conducted a pilot test-retest with 18 naive participants and analyzed data calculating intraclass correlation and kappa coefficients. RESULTS: An initial list of 34 items was established from the systematic review. Each round of the Delphi panel incorporated feedback from the previous round until a strong consensus was achieved. After 4 rounds of the Delphi to reach consensus on items to be included and wording, the questionnaire had a total of 32 cost items. For the test-retest, kappa coefficients ranged from -0.11 to 1.00 (median = 0.86), and intraclass correlation ranged from -0.02 to 0.99 (median = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous process of content and face development was implemented for the Cost for Patients Questionnaire, and this study allowed to set a list of cost elements to be considered from the patient's perspective. Additional research including a test-retest with a larger sample will be part of a subsequent validation strategy.

Development and Validation of a Hospital Indicator of Activity-Based Costs for Injury Admissions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions. METHODS: We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean. RESULTS: We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r2) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r2 of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk.

Economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in injury care: protocol for a 10-year systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. Injuries are second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs but data on the economic impact of clinical practices for injury admissions are lacking. This study aims to summarise evidence on the economic value of intrahospital clinical practices for injury care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to identify research articles in economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in acute injury care. We will search MEDLINE and databases such as Embase, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS and CINAHL for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary. We will consider the following outcomes relative to economic evaluations: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net health benefit, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) and incremental cost-benefit ratio. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies that meet eligibility criteria and extract data from included articles using an electronic data extraction form. All outcomes will be converted into iNMB. We will report iNMB for practices classified by type of practice (hospitalisation, consultation, diagnostic, therapeutic-surgical, therapeutic-drugs, therapeutic-other). Results obtained with a ceiling ratio of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for identified clinical practices will be summarised by charting forest plots. In line with Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, meta-analyses will not be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will summarise existing evidence on the economic value of clinical practices in injury care. Results will be used to advance knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions and will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed article, international scientific meetings and clinical and healthcare quality associations.

Frailty Assessment to Help Predict Patients at Risk of Delirium When Consulting the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is underdiagnosed in seniors at emergency departments (EDs) even though it is a frequent complication and is associated with functional and cognitive decline. As frailty is an independent predictor of adverse events in seniors, screening for frailty in EDs may help identify those at risk of delirium. OBJECTIVES: To assess if screening older patients for frailty in EDs could help identify those at risk of delirium. METHODOLOGY: This study was part of the multicenter prospective cohort INDEED study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years, initially free of delirium, with an ED stay ≥ 8 h were followed up to 24 h after ward admission. Frailty was assessed at baseline using the Clinical Frailty Scale; seniors with a score ≥ 5/7 were considered frail. Their delirium status was assessed twice daily using the Confusion Assessment Method. RESULTS: Among the 335 included patients, delirium occurred in 20/70 frail (28.6%) patients and in 20/265 (7.6%) robust ones. After adjusting for age and sex, the risk of delirium during ED stay was 3.13 (95% confidence interval 1.60-6.21) times higher in frail than in robust patients. Time between arrival to the ED and the incidence of delirium was also shorter for frail patients than for the robust ones (adjusted hazard ratio 2.44, 95% confidence interval 1.26-4.74). CONCLUSION: Increased frailty is associated with increased delirium during ED stays. Screening for frailty at emergency triage could help ED professionals identify seniors at higher risk of delirium.