Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Screening instruments for identification of vulnerable older adults at the emergency department: a critical appraisal.
van Dam, C S; Moss, N; Schaper, S A; Trappenburg, M C; Ter Wee, M M; Scheerman, K; Muller, M; Nanayakkara, Pwb; Peters, Mjl.
Affiliation
  • van Dam CS; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Moss N; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Schaper SA; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Trappenburg MC; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Ter Wee MM; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Scheerman K; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Muller M; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Nanayakkara P; Department of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Peters M; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Acute Med ; 17(3): 124-129, 2018.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30129944
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Early detection of vulnerable older adults at the emergency department (ED) and implementation of targeted interventions to prevent functional decline may lead to better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the level of agreement between four frequently used screening instruments ISAR-HP, VMS, InterRAI ED Screener and APOP.

METHODS:

Observational prospective cohort study in patients ≥ 70 years attending Dutch ED.

RESULTS:

The prevalence of vulnerability ranged from 19% (APOP) to 45% (ISAR-HP). Overall there was a moderate agreement between the screening instruments (Fleiss Kappa of 0.42 (p<0.001)).

CONCLUSION:

Depending on the screening instrument used, either only a small percentage or almost as many as half of the presenting patients will be eligible for targeted interventions, leading to large dissimilarities in working processes, resources and costs.
Search on Google
Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Language: En Journal: Acute Med Year: 2018 Type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands
Search on Google
Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Language: En Journal: Acute Med Year: 2018 Type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands