Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our primary objectives were to identify clinical practice guideline recommendations for children with acute mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) presenting to an emergency department (ED), appraise their overall quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of included recommendations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and medical association websites from January 2012 to May 2023 for clinical practice guidelines with at least 1 recommendation targeting pediatric mTBI populations presenting to the ED within 48 hours of injury for any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the acute phase of care (ED and inhospital). Pairs of reviewers independently assessed overall clinical practice guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality of evidence on recommendations was synthesized using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 11 clinical practice guidelines, of which 6 (55%) were rated high quality. These included 101 recommendations, of which 34 (34%) were based on moderate- to high-quality evidence, covering initial assessment, initial diagnostic imaging, monitoring/observation, therapeutic interventions, discharge advice, follow-up, and patient and family support. We did not identify any evidence-based recommendations in high-quality clinical practice guidelines for repeat imaging, neurosurgical consultation, or hospital admission. Lack of strategies and tools to aid implementation and editorial independence were the most common methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 34 recommendations based on moderate- to high-quality evidence that may be considered for implementation in clinical settings. Our review highlights important areas for future research. This review also underlines the importance of providing strategies to facilitate the implementation of clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric mTBI.

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.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations For Pediatric Multisystem Trauma Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for pediatric multisystem trauma, appraise their quality, synthesize the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence, and identify knowledge gaps. BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in children, who require a specific approach to injury care. Difficulties integrating CPG recommendations may cause observed practice and outcome variation in pediatric trauma care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials, and grey literature, from January 2007 to November 2022. We included CPGs targeting pediatric multisystem trauma with recommendations on any acute care diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using "Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II." RESULTS: We reviewed 19 CPGs, and 11 were considered high quality. Lack of stakeholder engagement and implementation strategies were weaknesses in guideline development. We extracted 64 recommendations: 6 (9%) on trauma readiness and patient transfer, 24 (38%) on resuscitation, 22 (34%) on diagnostic imaging, 3 (5%) on pain management, 6 (9%) on ongoing inpatient care, and 3 (5%) on patient and family support. Forty-two (66%) recommendations were strong or moderate, but only 5 (8%) were based on high-quality evidence. We did not identify recommendations on trauma survey assessment, spinal motion restriction, inpatient rehabilitation, mental health management, or discharge planning. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 5 recommendations for pediatric multisystem trauma with high-quality evidence. Organizations could improve CPGs by engaging all relevant stakeholders and considering barriers to implementation. There is a need for robust pediatric trauma research, to support recommendations.

Up-to-date on cancer screening among Ontario patients seen by walk-in clinic physicians: A retrospective cohort study.

Walk-in clinics are typically viewed as high-volume locations for managing acute issues but also may serve as a location for primary care, including cancer screening, for patients without a family physician. In this population-based cohort study, we compared breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening up-to-date status for people living in the Canadian province of Ontario who were formally enrolled to a family physician versus those not enrolled but who had at least one encounter with a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year. Using provincial administrative databases, we created two mutually exclusive groups: i) those who were formally enrolled to a family physician, ii) those who were not enrolled but had at least one visit with a walk-in clinic physician from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared up to date status for three cancer screenings as of April 1, 2020 among screen-eligible people. We found that people who were not enrolled and had seen a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year consistently were less likely to be up to date on cancer screening than Ontarians who were formally enrolled with a family physician (46.1% vs. 67.4% for breast, 45.8% vs. 67.4% for cervical, 49.5% vs. 73.1% for colorectal). They were also more likely to be foreign-born and to live in structurally marginalized neighbourhoods. New methods are needed to enable screening for people who are reliant on walk-in clinics and to address the urgent need in Ontario for more primary care providers who deliver comprehensive, longitudinal care.

A systematic review of tools for predicting complications in patients with acute infectious diarrhea.

OBJECTIVE: To identify tools that predict the risk of complications in patients presenting to outpatient clinics or emergency departments (ED) with acute infectious diarrhea. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2021. Articles reporting on the derivation or validation of a score to stratify the risk of intravenous rehydration or hospitalization among patients with acute infectious diarrhea in the ED or outpatient clinic were retained for analysis. RESULTS: Five articles reporting on two different tools were identified. Developed to assess the risk of hospitalization of children, the EsVida scale has not been externally validated. Developed originally to assess the level of dehydration in children, the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) was evaluated as a risk stratification tool. For predicting intravenous rehydration, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.73 and 0.88 and specificity between 0.38 and 0.69, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.06 and 0.32 and specificity between 0.94 and 0.99. For predicting hospitalization, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.74 and 1.00 and specificity between 0.34 and 0.38, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.26 and 0.62 and specificity between 0.66 and 0.96. High heterogeneity among studies and unclear risk of bias precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: As a risk-stratification tool, the CDS has been validated only for children. Further research is needed to develop and validate a tool suitable for adults in the ED.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Pediatric Orthopaedic Injury: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Lack of adherence to recommendations on pediatric orthopaedic injury care may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aimed to identify CPGs for pediatric orthopaedic injury care, appraise their quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of associated recommendations. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and websites of clinical organizations. CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric orthopaedic injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention developed in the last 15 years were eligible. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We synthesized recommendations from high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 13 eligible CPGs, of which 7 were rated high quality. Lack of stakeholder involvement and applicability (i.e., implementation strategies) were identified as weaknesses. We extracted 53 recommendations of which 19 were based on moderate or high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a synthesis of recommendations from high-quality CPGs that can be used by clinicians to guide treatment decisions. Future CPGs should aim to use a partnership approach with all key stakeholders and provide strategies to facilitate implementation. This study also highlights the need for more rigorous research on pediatric orthopaedic trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-therapeutic study.

Interhospital Variations in Resource Use Intensity for In-hospital Injury Deaths: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate interhospital variation in resource use for in-hospital injury deaths. BACKGROUND: Significant variation in resource use for end-of-life care has been observed in the US for chronic diseases. However, there is an important knowledge gap on end-of-life resource use for trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of injury deaths following hospitalization in any of the 57 trauma centers in a Canadian trauma system (2013-2016). Resource use intensity was measured using activity-based costing (2016 $CAN) according to time of death (72 h, 3-14 d, ≥14 d). We used multilevel log-linear regression to model resource use and estimated interhospital variation using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Our study population comprised 2044 injury deaths. Variation in resource use between hospitals was observed for all 3 time frames (ICC = 6.5%, 6.6%, and 5.9% for < 72 h, 3-14 d, and ≥14 d, respectively). Interhospital variation was stronger for allied health services (ICC = 18 to 26%), medical imaging (ICC = 4 to 10%), and the ICU (ICC = 5 to 6%) than other activity centers. We observed stronger interhospital variation for patients < 65 years of age (ICC = 11 to 34%) than those ≥65 (ICC = 5 to 6%) and for traumatic brain injury (ICC = 5 to 13%) than other injuries (ICC = 1 to 8%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed variation in resource use intensity for injury deaths across trauma centers. Strongest variation was observed for younger patients and those with traumatic brain injury. Results may reflect variation in level of care decisions and the incidence of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

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.

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.

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.

Functional and cognitive decline in older delirious adults after an emergency department visit.

BACKGROUND: the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of emergency department (ED) stay-associated delirium on older patient's functional and cognitive status at 60 days post ED visit. METHODS: this study was part of the multi-centre prospective cohort INDEED study. This project took place between March 2015 and July 2016 in five participating EDs across the province of Quebec. Independent non-delirious patients aged ≥65, with an ED stay ≥8 hours, were monitored for delirium until 24 hours post ward admission. A 60-day follow-up phone assessment was conducted. Participants were screened for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method. Functional and cognitive statuses were assessed at baseline and at the 60-day follow-up using OARS and TICS-m. RESULTS: a total of 608 patients were recruited, 393 of which completed the 60-day follow-up. The Confusion Assessment Method was positive in 69 patients (11.8%) during ED stay or within the first 24 hours following ward admission. At 60 days, delirium patients experienced an adjusted loss of -2.9/28 [95%CI: -3.9, -2.0] points on the OARS scale compared to non-delirious patients who lost -1.6 [95%CI: -1.9, -1.3] (P = 0.006). A significant adjusted difference in cognitive function was also noted at 60 days, as TICS-m scores in delirious patients decreased by -1.6 [95%CI: -3.5, 0.2] compared to non-delirious patients, who showed a minor improvement of 0.5 [95%CI: -0.1, 1.1] (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: seniors who developed ED stay-associated delirium have lower baseline functional and cognitive status than non-delirious patients, and they will experience a more significant decline at 60 days post ED visit.

Prophylactic Administration of Diphenhydramine to Reduce Neuroleptic Side Effects in the Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroleptics are commonly prescribed drugs to treat acute conditions (e.g., migraines) in the emergency department, but can cause serious adverse effects. Using diphenhydramine to prevent these adverse effects is very common but remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to determine whether prophylactic administration of diphenhydramine reduces the incidence of neuroleptic adverse effects in patients with acute conditions. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating any neuroleptic with diphenhydramine vs. the same neuroleptic with any inactive agent. Primary outcome was incidence of any extrapyramidal adverse effect. Secondary outcomes were akathisia, rescue medication, subjective restlessness, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and sedation. Independent reviewers scanned identified citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using random effect models. RESULTS: Of 1566 identified citations, nine studies (n = 1648 patients) met eligibility criteria. Four studies were specifically designed to compare the incidence of neuroleptic adverse effects with and without co-administration of diphenhydramine. Four studies were at high risk of bias. In primary analysis, diphenhydramine had no effect on the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (7 studies, n = 1393, risk ratio [RR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.31) or akathisia (5 studies, n = 1094; RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.33-1.82) or any of the secondary outcomes. In subgroup analysis, diphenhydramine was associated with a significant decrease in extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (4 studies, n = 705; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.90). Dosage analysis yielded no further information. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with placebo, diphenhydramine was associated with a significant reduction of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Overall quality of evidence is low. Further studies are warranted.

Pain induced by investigations and procedures commonly administered to older adults in the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the level of pain induced by common interventions performed in older adults consulting to the ED. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre observational cohort study in two academic EDs (Quebec City, Canada) between June 2018 and December 2019. A convenience sample of well-oriented and haemodynamically stable older adults (≥65 years old) who underwent at least two interventions during their ED stay was recruited. The level of pain was assessed using an 11-point Numerous Rating Scale (NRS) and is presented using median and IQR or categorised as no pain (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6) or severe pain (7-10). RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. The mean age was 77.8±8.0 years old and 54.4% were female . The number of pain assessments per intervention ranged between 22 (urinary catheterisation) and 240 (intravenous catheter). All imaging investigations (X-rays, CT and bedside ultrasound) were associated with a median level of pain of 0. The median level of pain for other interventions was as follows: blood samplings (n=231, NRS 1 (IQR 0-3)), intravenous catheters (n=240, NRS 2 (IQR 0-4)), urinary catheterisations (n=22, NRS 4.5 (IQR 2-6)), cervical collars (n=50, NRS 5 (IQR 0-8)) and immobilisation mattresses (n=34, NRS 5 (IQR 0-8)). Urinary catheterisations (63.8%), cervical collars (56.0%) and immobilisation mattresses (52.9%) frequently induced moderate or severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions administered to older adults in the ED are associated with no or low pain intensity. However, urinary catheterisation and spinal motion restriction devices are frequently associated with moderate or severe pain.

S100B protein level for the detection of clinically significant intracranial haemorrhage in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a subanalysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical assessment of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is challenging and overuse of head CT in the ED is a major problem. Several studies have attempted to reduce unnecessary head CTs following a mTBI by identifying new tools aiming to predict intracranial bleeding. Higher levels of S100B protein have been associated with intracranial haemorrhage following a mTBI in previous literature. The main objective of this study is to assess whether plasma S100B protein level is associated with clinically significant brain injury and could be used to reduce the number of head CT post-mTBI. METHODS: Study design: secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study conducted between 2013 and 2016 in five Canadian EDs. Inclusion criteria: non-hospitalised patients with mTBI with a GCS score of 13-15 in the ED and a blood sample drawn within 24 hours after the injury. Data collected: sociodemographic and clinical data were collected in the ED. S100B protein was analysed using ELISA. All CT scans were reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the biomarker results. Main outcome: the presence of clinically important brain injury. RESULTS: 476 patients were included. Mean age was 41±18 years old and 150 (31.5%) were women. Twenty-four (5.0%) patients had a clinically significant intracranial haemorrhage. Thirteen patients (2.7%) presented a non-clinically significant brain injury. A total of 37 (7.8%) brain injured patients were included in our study. S100B median value (Q1-Q3) was: 0.043 µg/L (0.008-0.080) for patients with clinically important brain injury versus 0.039 µg/L (0.023-0.059) for patients without clinically important brain injury. Sensitivity and specificity of the S100B protein level, if used alone to detect clinically important brain injury, were 16.7% (95% CI 4.7% to 37.4%) and 88.5% (95% CI 85.2% to 91.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Plasma S100B protein level was not associated with clinically significant intracranial lesion in patients with mTBI.

Elder Abuse in the Out-of-Hospital and Emergency Department Settings: A Scoping Review.

This scoping review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the epidemiology, patient- and caregiver-associated factors, clinical characteristics, screening tools, prevention, interventions, and perspectives of health care professionals in regard to elder abuse in the out-of-hospital or emergency department (ED) setting. Literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were eligible if they were observational or experimental and reported on elder abuse in the out-of-hospital or ED setting. A qualitative approach, performed independently by 2 reviewers, was used to synthesize and report the findings. A total of 413 citations were retrieved, from which 55 studies published between 1988 and 2019 were included. The prevalence of elder abuse reported during the ED visit was lower than reported in the community. The most commonly detected type of elder abuse was neglect, and then physical abuse. The following factors were more common in identified cases of elder abuse: female sex, cognitive impairment, functional disability, frailty, social isolation, and lower socioeconomic status. Psychiatric and substance use disorders were more common among victims and their caregivers. Screening tools have been proposed, but multicenter validation and influence of screening on patient-important outcomes were lacking. Health care professionals reported being poorly trained and acknowledged numerous barriers when caring for potential victims. There is insufficient knowledge, limited training, and a poorly organized system in place for elder abuse in the out-of-hospital and ED settings. Studies on the processes and effects of screening and interventions are required to improve care of this vulnerable population.

Serial Ottawa 3DY assessments to detect delirium in older emergency department community dwellers.

BACKGROUND: delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among older emergency department (ED) patients. When using physician gestalt, delirium is missed in the majority of patients. The Ottawa 3DY (O3DY) has been validated to detect cognitive dysfunction among older ED patients. OBJECTIVES: to determine the sensitivity and specificity of serial O3DY assessments to detect delirium in older ED patients. DESIGN: a prospective observational multicenter cohort study. SETTING: four Quebec EDs. PARTICIPANTS: independent or semi-independent older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with an ED stay of at least 8 hours that required hospitalisation. MEASUREMENTS: eligible patients were evaluated using serial O3DY assessments at least 6 hours apart. The primary outcome was delirium after at least 8 hours in the ED. The reference standard for delirium assessment was the confusion assessment method (CAM). The sensitivity and specificity of the serial O3DY to detect delirium were calculated. RESULTS: we enrolled 301 patients (mean age 77 years, 49.5% male, 3.0% with a history of mild dementia). Thirty patients (10.0%) were CAM positive for delirium. Patients had a median of three O3DY assessments. Serial O3DY evaluations to detect delirium among patients with at least one abnormal O3DY had a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval-CI 69.3-96.2%) and a specificity of 44.3% (95%; CI 38.3-50.4%). CONCLUSION: serial O3DY testing demonstrates good sensitivity as a screening tool to detect delirium among older adult patients with prolonged ED lengths of stay. Emergency physicians should consider the use of the serial O3DY over clinician gestalt to improve delirium detection.

Resource use for older people hospitalised due to injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality. For countries with ageing populations, admissions of injured older patients are increasing exponentially. Yet, we know little about hospital resource use for injured older patients. Our primary objective was to evaluate inter-hospital variation in the risk-adjusted resource use for injured older patients. Secondary objectives were to identify the determinants of resource use and evaluate its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of injured older patients (≥65 years) admitted to any trauma centres in the province of Quebec (2013-2016, N = 33,184). Resource use was estimated using activity-based costing and modelled with multilevel linear models. We conducted separate subgroup analyses for patients with trauma and fragility fractures. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted resource use varied significantly across trauma centres, more for older patients with fragility fractures (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.093, 95% CI [0.079, 0.102]) than with trauma (ICC = 0.047, 95% CI = 0.035-0.051). Risk-adjusted resource use increased with age, and the number of comorbidities, and varied with discharge destination (P < 0.001). Higher hospital resource use was associated with higher incidence of complications for trauma (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7) and fragility fractures (r = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7) and with higher mortality for fragility fractures (r = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant inter-hospital variations in resource use for injured older patients. Hospitals with higher resource use did not have better clinical outcomes. Hospital resource use may not always positively impact patient care and outcomes. Future studies should evaluate mechanisms, by which hospital resource use impacts care.

Validation of the O3DY French Version (O3DY-F) for the Screening of Cognitive Impairment in Community Seniors in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that older patients undergo systematic mental status screening when presenting to the emergency department (ED). However, the tools available are not necessarily adapted to the ED environment, therefore, quicker and easier tools are needed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to validate the Ottawa 3DY-French (O3DY-F) Scale as a screening tool for delirium and cognitive impairment in a French-speaking cohort. METHOD: This multicenter prospective study was conducted in four hospitals across the province of Quebec. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 65 years, ED stay ≥ 8 h, awaiting admission to a care unit, and independent or semi-independent in their daily living activities. Cognitive status was assessed during the initial interview using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Screening-modified (TICS-m) and the O3DY-F scale. Comparisons were made between the O3DY-F and the TICS-m and Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the O3DY-F for the detection of cognitive impairment and delirium. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were included in this study, 139 of which had a positive O3DY-F. When compared with the CAM, the O3DY-F had a sensitivity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.4-96.6) and a specificity of 58.2% (95% CI 52.3-63.9) for the detection of prevalent delirium. The O3DY-F had a sensitivity of 76.2% (95% CI 66.7-84.8) and a specificity of 67.6% (95% CI 61.0-73.6) for cognitive impairment (defined as a TICS-m < 27). CONCLUSION: The O3DY-F is a useful and effective tool to screen for delirium and undetected cognitive impairment among a French-speaking cohort in the ED.

Unrecognized Incident Delirium in Older Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: It is documented that health professionals from various settings fail to detect > 50% of delirium cases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the proportion of unrecognized incident delirium in five emergency departments (EDs). Secondary objectives were to compare the two groups (recognized/unrecognized) and assess the impact of unrecognized delirium at 60 days regarding 1) unplanned consultations and 2) functional and cognitive decline. METHOD: This is a sub-analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Independent patients aged ≥ 65 years who tested negative for delirium on the initial interview with an ED stay ≥ 8 h were enrolled. Patients were assessed twice daily using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Delirium Index up to 24 h into hospital admission. Medical records were reviewed to assess whether delirium was recognized or not. RESULTS: The main study reported a positive CAM in 68 patients. Three patients' medical files were incomplete, leaving a sample of 65 patients. Delirium was recognized in 15.4% of our participants. These patients were older (p = 0.03) and female (p = 0.01) but were otherwise similar to those with unrecognized delirium. Delirium Index scores were higher in patients with recognized delirium (p = 0.01) and they experienced a more important functional decline at 60 days (p = 0.02). No association was found between delirium recognition and health care services utilization or decline in cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms reports of high rates of missed or unrecognized delirium (84.6%) in ED patients compared to routine structured screening using the CAM performed by a research assistant. Patients with recognized delirium were older women with a greater severity of symptoms and experienced a more significant functional decline at 60 days.