Hot off the press: Assessing older adult fall risk in the emergency department

What evidence is there for the identification and management of frail older people in the emergency department? A systematic mapping review

Background

Emergency departments (EDs) are facing unprecedented levels of demand. One of the causes of this increased demand is the ageing population. Older people represent a particular challenge to the ED as those older people who are frail will require management that considers their frailty alongside their presenting complaint. How to identify these older people as frail and how best to manage them in the ED is a major challenge for the health service to address.

Objectives

To systematically map interventions to identify frail and high-risk older people in the ED and interventions to manage older people in the ED and to map the outcomes of these interventions and examine whether or not there is any evidence of the impact of these interventions on patient and health service outcomes.

Design

A systematic mapping review.

Setting

Evidence from developed countries on interventions delivered in the ED.

Participants

Frail and high-risk older people and general populations of older people (aged > 65 years).

Interventions

Interventions to identify older people who are frail or who are at high risk of adverse outcomes and to manage (frail) older people within the ED.

Main outcome measures

Patient outcomes (direct and indirect) and health service outcomes.

Data sources

Evidence from 103 peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts and 17 systematic reviews published from 2005 to 2016.

Review methods

A review protocol was drawn up and a systematic database search was undertaken for the years 2005–2016 (using MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium and PROSPERO). Studies were included according to predefined criteria. Following data extraction, evidence was classified into interventions relating to the identification of frail/high-risk older people in the ED and interventions relating to their management. A narrative synthesis of interventions/outcomes relating to these categories was undertaken. A quality assessment of individual studies was not undertaken; instead, an assessment of the overall evidence base in this area was made.

Results

Of the 90 included studies, 32 focused on a frail/high-risk population and 60 focused on an older population. These studies reported on interventions to identify (n = 57) and manage (n = 53) older people. The interventions to identify frail and at-risk older people, on admission and at discharge, utilised a number of different tools. There was extensive evidence on these question-based tools, but the evidence was inconclusive and contradictory. Service delivery innovations comprised changes to staffing, infrastructure and care delivery. There was a general trend towards improved outcomes in admissions avoidance, reduced ED reattendance and improved discharge outcomes.

Limitations

This review was a systematic mapping review. Some of the methods adopted differed from those used in a standard systematic review. Mapping the evidence base has led to the inclusion of a wide variety of evidence (in terms of study type and reporting quality). No recommendations on the effectiveness of specific interventions have been made as this was outside the scope of the review.

Conclusions

A substantial body of evidence on interventions for frail and high-risk older people was identified and mapped.

Future work

Future work in this area needs to determine why interventions work and whether or not they are feasible for the NHS and acceptable to patients.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043260.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

An Analysis of Altmetrics in Emergency Medicine

OBJECTIVES

Alternative-level metrics (Altmetrics) are a new method to assess the sharing and spread of scientific knowledge. The primary objective of this study was to describe the traditional metrics and Altmetric scores of the 50 most frequently cited articles published in emergency medicine (EM) journals. Since many articles related to EM are published in other journals, the secondary aim of this study was to describe the Altmetric scores of the most frequently cited articles relevant to EM in other biomedical journals.

METHODS

A structured search of the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science version of the Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted. The 200 most frequently cited articles in the top 10 EM journals (2011 Journal Citation Report) were identified. The 200 most frequently cited articles from the rest of the medical literature, matching a predefined list of keywords relevant to the specialty of EM, were identified. Two authors reviewed the lists of citations for relevance to EM and a consensus approach was used to arrive at the final lists of the top 50 cited articles. The Altmetric scores for the top 50 cited articles in EM and other journals were determined. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were performed.

RESULTS

The highest Altmetric score for EM articles was 25.0; the mean (±SD) was 1.9 (±5.0). The EM journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was Resuscitation. The main clinical areas shared for articles from EM articles were trauma (mean ± SD = 11.0 ± 15.6, median = 11.0) and cardiac arrest (mean ± SD = 2.7 ± 5.8, median = 0). The highest Altmetric score for other journals was 176.0 (mean ± SD = 23.3 ± 40.8). The other journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was the New England Journal of Medicine. The main clinical areas shared for articles were critical care (mean ± SD score = 36.5 ± 47.4, median = 36.5), sepsis (mean ± SD = 24.6 ± 48.8, median = 12.0), cardiology (mean ± SD = 19.2 ± 35.6, median = 7.0), and infectious diseases (mean ± SD = 17.0 ± 12.7, median = 17.0). Spearman correlation demonstrated weakly positive correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for EM articles and other journals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first analysis of Altmetric scores for the top cited articles in EM. We demonstrated that there is a mild correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for the top papers in EM and other biomedical journals. We also demonstrated that there is a gap between the sharing of the top articles in EM journals and those related to EM in other biomedical journals. Future research to explore this relationship and its temporal trends will benefit the understanding of the reach and dissemination of EM research within the scientific community and society in general.