Reliability of the longitudinal experts all data (LEAD) methodology for determining the presence of elder mistreatment.

Developing reliable screening tools to identify elder mistreatment requires an accurate and reproducible reference standard. This study sought to investigate the reliability of the Longitudinal, Experts, All Data (LEAD) methodology as a reference standard in confirming presence of elder mistreatment. We analyzed data from a large, emergency department-based study that used a LEAD panel to determine the reference standard. For this study, a second, blinded LEAD panel reviewed clinical material for 40 patients. For each panel, five content experts voted on whether elder mistreatment was present. We found moderate agreement between the two LEAD panels in determining presence of elder mistreatment: 85% agreement; k = 0.58; 95% Confidence Interval 0.28-0.87. Individual raters for both LEAD panels reported being mostly certain or certain >90% of votes. Efforts to further characterize and improve the reliability of the LEAD methodology in this context are warranted.

Research priorities for elder abuse screening and intervention: A Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) network scoping review and consensus statement.

The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) Network (1) conducted a scoping review of the current literature on the identification of and interventions to address elder abuse among patients receiving care in emergency departments and (2) used this review to prioritize research questions for knowledge development. Two questions guided the scoping review: What is the effect of universal emergency department screening compared to targeted screening or usual practice on cases of elder abuse identified, safety outcomes, and health care utilization?; and What is the safety, health, legal, and psychosocial impact of emergency department-based interventions vs. usual care for patients experiencing elder abuse? We searched five article databases. Additional material was located through reference lists of identified publications, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar. The results were discussed in a consensus conference; and stakeholders voted to prioritize research questions. No studies were identified that directly addressed the first question regarding assessment strategies, but four instruments used for elder abuse screening in the emergency department were identified. For the second question, we located six articles on interventions for elder abuse in the emergency department; however, none directly addressed the question of comparative effectiveness. Based on these findings, GEAR participants identified five questions as priorities for future research - two related to screening, two related to intervention, and one encompassed both. In sum, research to identify best practices for elder abuse assessment and intervention in emergency departments is still needed. Although there are practical and ethical challenges, rigorous experimental studies are needed.