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.

Enhancing healthcare access for an older population: The age-friendly emergency department.

Healthcare systems face significant challenges in meeting the unique needs of older adults, particularly in the acute setting. Age-friendly healthcare is a comprehensive approach using the 4Ms framework-what matters, medications, mentation, and mobility-to ensure that healthcare settings are responsive to the needs of older patients. The Age-Friendly Emergency Department (AFED) is a crucial component of a holistic age-friendly health system. Our objective is to provide an overview of the AFED model, its core principles, and the benefits to older adults and healthcare clinicians. The AFED optimizes the delivery of emergency care by integrating age-specific considerations into various aspects of (1) ED physical infrastructure, (2) clinical care policies, and (3) care transitions. Physical infrastructure incorporates environmental modifications to enhance patient safety, including adequate lighting, nonslip flooring, and devices for sensory and ambulatory impairment. Clinical care policies address the physiological, cognitive, and psychosocial needs of older adults while preserving focus on emergency issues. Care transitions include communication and involving community partners and case management services. The AFED prioritizes collaboration between interdisciplinary team members (ED clinicians, geriatric specialists, nurses, physical/occupational therapists, and social workers). By adopting an age-friendly approach, EDs have the potential to improve patient-centered outcomes, reduce adverse events and hospitalizations, and enhance functional recovery. Moreover, healthcare clinicians benefit from the AFED model through increased satisfaction, multidisciplinary support, and enhanced training in geriatric care. Policymakers, healthcare administrators, and clinicians must collaborate to standardize guidelines, address barriers to AFEDs, and promote the adoption of age-friendly practices in the ED.

An Emergency Department-based system intervention to improve osteoporosis screening for older adults at high-risk of fracture.

Falls and osteoporosis are risk factors for fragility fractures. Bone mineral density (BMD) assessment is associated with better preventative osteoporosis care, but it is underutilized by those at high fracture risk. We created a novel electronic medical record (EMR) alert-driven protocol to screen patients in the Emergency Department (ED) for fracture risk and tested its feasibility and effectiveness in generating and completing referrals for outpatient BMD testing after discharge. The EMR alert was configured in 2 tertiary-care EDs and triggered by the term "fall" in the chief complaint, age (≥65 years for women, ≥70 years for men), and high fall risk (Morse score ≥ 45). The alert electronically notified ED study staff of potentially eligible patients. Participants received osteoporosis screening education and had BMD testing ordered. From November 15, 2020 to December 4, 2021, there were 2,608 EMR alerts among 2,509 patients. We identified 558 patients at high-risk of fracture who were screened for BMD testing referral. Participants were excluded for: serious illness (N = 141), no documented health insurance to cover BMD testing (N = 97), prior BMD testing/recent osteoporosis care (N = 58), research assistant unavailable to enroll (N = 53), concomitant fracture (N = 43), bedridden status (N = 38), chief complaint of fall documented in error (N = 38), long-term care residence (N = 34), participation refusal (N = 32), or hospitalization (N = 3). Of the 16 participants who had BMD testing ordered, 7 scheduled and 5 completed BMD testing. EMR alerts can help identify subpopulations who may benefit from osteoporosis screening, but there are significant barriers to identifying eligible and willing patients for screening in the ED. In our study targeting an innovative venue for osteoporosis care delivery, only about 1% of patients at high-risk of fracture scheduled BMD testing after an ED visit. Adequate resources during and after an ED visit are needed to ensure that older adults participate in preventative osteoporosis care.

Impact of Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine on Repeat Emergency Department Utilization.

Introduction: Recent studies have demonstrated the promise of emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nx) for improving 30-day retention in outpatient addiction care programs for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We investigated whether ED-initiated bup/nx for OUD also impacts repeat ED utilization. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of ED patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of OUD from July 2019-December 2020. Characteristics considered included age, gender, race, insurance status, domicile status, presence of comorbid Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnosis, presenting chief complaint, and provision of a bup/nx prescription and/or naloxone kit. Primary outcomes included repeat ED visit (opioid or non-opioid related) within 30 days, 90 days, and one year. Statistical analyses included bivariate comparison and Poisson regression. Results: Of 169 participants, the majority were male (67.5%), White (82.8%), uninsured (72.2%), and in opioid withdrawal and/or requesting "detox" (75.7%). Ninety-one (53.8%) received ED-initiated bup/nx, which was independent of age, gender, race, insurance status, presence of comorbid DSM-5 diagnosis, or domicile status. Naloxone was more likely to be provided to patients who received bup/nx (97.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001), and bup/nx was more likely to be given to patients who presented with opioid withdrawal and/or requested "detox" (63.3% vs 36.7%; P < 0.001). Bup/nx provision was associated with decreased ED utilization for opioid-related visits at 30 days (P = 0.04). Homelessness and lack of insurance were associated with increased ED utilization for non-opioid-related visits at 90 days (P = 0.008 and P = 0.005, respectively), and again at one year for homelessness (P < 0.001). When controlling for age and domicile status, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for overall ED visits was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96) at 30 days, 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.69) at 90 days, and 0.60 (95% CI 0.39-0.92) at one year, favoring bup/nx provision. Conclusion: Initiation of bup/nx in the ED setting was associated with decreased subsequent ED utilization. Socioeconomic factors, specifically health insurance and domicile status, significantly impacted non-opioid-related ED reuse. These findings demonstrate the ED's potential as an initiation point for bup/nx and highlight the importance of considering the social risk and social need for OUD patients.