Managing Delirium and Agitation in the Older Emergency Department Patient: The ADEPT Tool.

Agitation and delirium are common reasons for older adults to seek care in the emergency department (ED). Providing care for this population in the ED setting can be challenging for emergency physicians. There are several knowledge translation gaps in how to best screen older adults for these conditions and how to manage them. A working group of subject-matter experts convened to develop an easy-to-use, point-of-care tool to assist emergency physicians in the care of these patients. The tool is designed to serve as a resource to address the knowledge translation and implementation gaps that exist in the field. The purpose of this article is present and explain the Assess, Diagnose, Evaluate, Prevent, and Treat tool. Participants were identified with expertise in emergency medicine, geriatric emergency medicine, geriatrics, and psychiatry. Background literature reviews were performed before the in-person meeting in key areas: delirium, dementia, and agitation in older adults. Participants worked electronically before and after an in-person meeting to finalize development of the tool in 2017. Subsequent work was performed electronically in the following months and additional expert review sought. EDs are an important point of care for older adults. Behavioral changes in older adults can be a manifestation of underlying medical problems, mental health concerns, medication adverse effects, substance abuse, or dementia. Five core principles were identified by the group that can help ensure adequate and thorough care for older adults with agitation or delirium: assess, diagnose, evaluate, prevent, and treat. This article provides background for and explains the importance of these principles related to the care of older adults with agitation. It is important for emergency physicians to recognize the spectrum of underlying causes of behavioral changes and have the tools to screen older adults for those causes, and methods to treat the underlying causes and ameliorate their symptoms.

Utilization of rapid response resources and outcomes in a comprehensive cancer center*.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences in characteristics and outcomes of cancer center patients with other subspecialty medical patients reviewed by rapid response teams. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized general medicine patients, subspecialty medicine patients, and oncology patients requiring rapid response team activation over a 2-year period from September 2009 to August 2011. PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-seven subspecialty medical patients required rapid response team intervention. SETTING: A single academic medical center in the southeastern United States (800+ bed) with a dedicated 50-bed inpatient comprehensive cancer care center. INTERVENTIONS: Data abstraction from computerized medical records and a hospital quality improvement rapid response database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 557 patients, 135 were cancer center patients. Cancer center patients had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Score (4.4 vs 2.9, < 0.001). Cancer center patients had a significantly longer hospitalization period prior to rapid response team activation (11.4 vs 6.1 d, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between proportions of patients requiring ICU transfer between the two groups (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.8). Cancer center patients had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with the other subspecialty medical patients (33% vs 18%; odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.50-3.5). If the rapid response team event required an ICU transfer, this finding was more pronounced (56% vs 23%; odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.0-7.8). The utilization of rapid response team resources during the 2-year period studied was also much higher for the oncology patients with 37.34 activations per 1,000 patient discharges compared with 20.86 per 1,000 patient discharges for the general medical patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology patients requiring rapid response team activation have a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, particularly if the rapid response team requires ICU transfer. Oncology patients also utilize rapid response team resources at a much higher rate.

Rapid Response Events in Hospitalized Patients: Patient Symptoms and Clinician Communication.

CONTEXT: Patients triggering rapid response team (RRT) intervention are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Data on symptom burden of these patients do not currently exist, and current symptom management and communication practices of RRT clinicians are unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify the symptom experience of RRT patients and observe how RRT clinicians communicate with patients and their families. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study from August to December 2015. Investigators attending RRT events measured frequencies of symptom assessment, communication, and supportive behaviors by RRT clinicians. As the rapid response event concluded, investigators measured patient-reported pain, dyspnea, and anxiety using a numeric rating scale of 0 (none) to 10 (most severe), with uncontrolled symptoms defined as numeric rating scale score of ≥4. RESULTS: We observed a total of 52 RRT events. RRT clinicians assessed for pain during the event in 62% of alert patients, dyspnea in 38%, and anxiety in 21%. Goals of care were discussed during 3% of events and within 24 hours in 13%. For the primary outcome measure, at the RRT event conclusion, 44% of alert patients had uncontrolled pain, 39% had uncontrolled dyspnea, and 35% had uncontrolled anxiety. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients triggering RRT events have a high degree of uncontrolled symptoms that are infrequently assessed and treated. Although these patients experience an acute change in medical status and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, goals-of-care discussions with RRT patients or families are rarely documented in the period after the events.

Long-term outcomes of the bronchial artery embolization are diagnosis dependent.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) is an established, safe, and effective procedure for the treatment of hemoptysis but long-term outcomes of the BAE have never been investigated before. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyze long-term outcomes of the BAE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis was done from the hospital central database for all patients undergoing the BAE over a consecutive 14-year period (January 2000-February 2014). A total of 58 patients were identified from the database. Eight patients were excluded due to the lack of follow-up. Data such as patient demographics, reason for hemoptysis, medical imaging results, bronchoscopy findings, recurrence rates, and morbidity/mortality rates after the BAE were collected. RESULTS: Eighty three embolizations were performed in 50 patients. The median follow-up was of 2.2 years. Cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis was the most common etiology (21/50), followed by non-CF bronchiectasis (9/50). Cavitary lung disease occurred in 12/50 patients, an additional 4/50 had cancer (primary lung and metastatic), and one patient had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) vasculitis. In three patients the etiology was unknown. Postprocedural complications occurred in 5/83 (6%) patients, two patients with two major complications - stroke (one) and paraplegia (one) - and three patients with minor complications - chest pain (two) and bronchial artery dissection (one). A total of 15/50 patients died during the follow-up. Three patients died of hemoptysis, and the remaining deaths were unrelated to the procedure or hemoptysis. Twenty four patients had recurrent hemoptysis. A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed an excellent long-term survival that was 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The BAE is a safe and effective procedure with excellent overall long-term survival.