Prediction of Emergency Department Re-Visits in Older Patients by the Identification of Senior at Risk (ISAR) Screening

Impact of a geriatric intervention based on the Comprehensive Geriatrics Assessment on avoidable admissions in older patients at risk evaluated in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

To know the impact of a geriatric intervention based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) on avoidable admissions in older patients at risk evaluated in the Emergency Department.

METHOD

Prospective observational unicenter study. We included patients, from October 1, 2018 to January 31, 2020, over 75 years who were attended at the Emergency Department with a Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST) score≥2. All patients were evaluated by a geriatrician through the CGA. The reasons for going to the Emergency room were collected and also the main intervention carried out by Geriatrics, whether admission or discharge was indicated and whether the admission was avoidable. We did a cost analysis calculating this by (bed/day×average stay×number of admissions avoided).

RESULTS

We included 260 patients, 66% were women and the mean age was 86 years. 73.5% patients had polypharmacy, the mean Charlson index was 2.5 (5.6). 63.3% were independent for walking and 20.8% independent for basic activities of daily living. 59% had cognitive impairment. 91.5% lived at home. The most frequent reason for visiting the Emergency room was decline of general state in 22% and the most frequent intervention carried out by Geriatrics was assistance in the decision making process in 35.4% followed by referral to a preferential outpatient geriatric care circuit in 32.7%. Other interventions carried out by Geriatrics was assistance in clarifying diagnosis (4.2%), assistance in pharmacological adjustment (8.5%), referral to a standard geriatric care pathway (13.1%), telephone follow-up (4.2%) and/or coordination with Social Services for care planning (11.2%). Including all patients, 29.2% required hospital admission and 70.8% were discharged. 40% admissions were avoided, which meant more than 540 thousand euros saved.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized CGA coordinated by Geriatrics in older patients at risk of suffering adverse events in the Emergency room reduces admissions and costs, so it should therefore be established as a recommendation of good clinical practice.

Assessing dynamical resilience indicators in older adults: a prospective feasibility cohort study

PURPOSE

Measuring dynamical resilience indicators based on time series data may improve the prediction of health deterioration in older adults after hospital discharge. We examined the feasibility of an intensive prospective cohort study examining dynamical resilience indicators based on time series data of symptoms and physical activity in acutely ill older adults who visited the Emergency Department (ED).

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study with time series data from symptom questionnaires and activity trackers. Thirty older adults (aged 75.9 ± 5.5 years, 37% female) who were discharged from the ED of a tertiary hospital in the Netherlands were included in the study. We monitored self-reported symptoms using a daily online questionnaire, and physical activity using an activity tracker for 30 days. Descriptive data on participant eligibility and adherence to and acceptability of the assessments were collected.

RESULTS

Of 134 older patients visiting the ED, 109/134 (81%) were eligible for inclusion and 30/109 (28%) were included. Twenty-eight (93%) of the included participants completed follow-up. Regarding the adherence rate, 78% of participants filled in the questionnaire and 80% wore the activity tracker. Three (10%) participants completed fewer than three questionnaires. Most participants rated the measurements as acceptable and seven (23%) participants experienced an adverse outcome in the 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Such an intensive prospective cohort study examining dynamical resilience indicators in older adults was feasible. The quality of the collected data was sufficient, some adjustments to the measurement protocol are recommended. This study is an important first step to study resilience in older adults.

Assessing the Efficacy of the Modified SEGA Frailty (mSEGA) Screening Tool in Predicting 12-Month Morbidity and Mortality among Elderly Emergency Department Visitors

INTRODUCTION

Rapid identification of frail elderly individuals upon admission to the emergency department is pivotal for enhancing their care and alleviating emergency room congestion.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aims to explore the relationship between morbidity, mortality, and frailty, as assessed by the mSEGA scale, among individuals aged 65 years or older in the emergency department.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center. The pilot study included patients aged 65 and above who were admitted to Chaumont Hospital's emergency unit (Haute-Marne department) for medical and/or surgical reasons between 1 July 2017 and 31 January 2018. Data encompassed socio-demographic characteristics, medical profiles, and emergency department visit details. Outcomes for patients one year post-admission were obtained through consultation with their respective general practitioners.

RESULTS

A total of 255 subjects participated, with a mean age of 82.1 ± 8.2 years. Primary admission reasons were falls (n = 51, 20.0%), digestive issues (excluding hemorrhage) (n = 30, 11.8%), and "other" causes (n = 61, 23.9%). Among participants, 78 (30.6%) scored ≤8 on the mSEGA frailty scale, 49 (19.2%) scored 9 to 11, and 125 (50.2%) scored ≥12. Concerning post-emergency department outcomes, 152 patients (59.6%) were hospitalized, while 103 (40.4%) were discharged. No deaths were reported during the study period, and vital status was known for all subjects at the one-year mark. At that point, 63 out of 255 patients had passed away, with 30 of them being readmitted to the emergency department either before or at the time of their one-year death. The 12-month survival rate analysis based on frailty status revealed a significant difference. Low-frailty patients exhibited a survival rate of 87.2% (95% CI; [77.5-92.9]), whereas frail/very frail patients had a survival rate of 70.0% (95% CI; [62.7-76.2]). Similarly, the 12-month readmission-free survival rate demonstrated statistically significant disparities. Low-frailty patients had a rate of 76.9% (95% CI; [65.9-84.8]), compared to 51.4% (95% CI; [43.8-58.5]) for very frail patients.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing the mSEGA frailty scale in the Emergency Department could provide crucial prognostic insights, highlighting significant differences in 12-month survival and readmission-free survival rates based on frailty status.

Validation of the ICEBERG emergency room screening tool for early identification of older patients with geriatric consultation needs

Background

The growing number of older and oldest-old patients often present in the emergency room (ER) with undiagnosed geriatric syndromes posing them at high risk for complications in acute care.

Objective

To develop and validate an ER screening tool (ICEBERG) to capture 9 geriatric domains of risk in older patients.

Design setting and participants

For construct validity we performed a chart-based study in 129 ER patients age 70 years and older admitted to acute geriatric care (pilot 1). For criterion validity we performed a prospective study in 288 ER patients age 70 years and older admitted to acute care (pilot 2).

Exposure

In both validation steps, the exposure was ICEBERG test performance below and above the median score (10, range 0-30).

Outcome measures and analysis

In pilot 1, we compared the exposure with results of nine tests of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). In pilot 2, we compared the exposure assessed in the ER to following length of hospital stay (LOS), one-on-one nursing care needs, in-hospital mortality, 30-day re-admission rate, and discharge to a nursing home.

Main results

Mean age was 82.9 years (SD 6.7; n = 129) in pilot 1, and 81.5 years (SD 7.0; n = 288) in pilot 2. In pilot 1, scoring ≥10 was associated with significantly worse performance in 8 of 9 of the individual CGA tests. In pilot 2, scoring ≥10 resulted in longer average LOS (median 7 days, IQR 4, 11 vs. 6 days, IQR 3, 8) and higher nursing care needs (median 1,838 min, IQR 901, 4,267 vs. median 1,393 min, IQR 743, 2,390). Scoring ≥10 also increased the odds of one-on-one nursing care 2.9-fold (OR 2.86, 95%CI 1.17-6.98), and the odds of discharge to a nursing home 3.7-fold (OR 3.70, 95%CI 1.74-7.85). Further, scoring ≥10 was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and re-hospitalization rates, however not reaching statistical significance. Average time to complete the ICEBERG tool was 4.3 min (SD 1.3).

Conclusion

Our validation studies support construct validity of the ICEBERG tool with the CGA, and criterion validity with several clinical indicators in acute care.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Risk of Emergency Department Revisits in Chinese Older Patients

Objective

The identification of older patients at risk of repeated emergency department (ED) visits is crucial for managing preventable adverse outcomes. This study aims to identify risk factors associated with ED revisits and to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting risk of geriatric ED revisits.

Methods

This was a cohort study comprising 553 older patients, who attended the two tertiary hospitals EDs in China from August 2018 to February 2019 and were prospectively followed for any unplanned revisit within 1 year after discharge. Patients were randomly assigned to a training or validation set at a ratio of 2:1. Stepwise selection procedure was applied to select factors associated with ED revisits for inclusion in a multivariable logistic model from which a nomogram was elaborated. Discrimination, calibration and clinical utility of the nomogram were assessed using C-statistic, calibration plot, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

The final nomogram included four predictors for ED revisits: age, BMI, frailty and polypharmacy. Older patients having revisits were more likely to be frail (OR = 1.17, p = 0.031), have polypharmacy (OR = 1.69, p = 0.049) or BMI <18.5 kg/m² (OR = 2.45, p = 0.025), and were less likely to be older than 90 years (OR = 0.21, p = 0.002). The nomogram demonstrated acceptable discrimination ability in the training (C-index = 0.661) and validation sets (C-index = 0.651), satisfactory calibration (p > 0.05), and good clinical applicability.

Conclusion

A nomogram incorporating four obtainable variables was constructed to individualize ED readmission risk in older patients. These patients may benefit from early triage and better-targeted care if considering the nomogram as a clinical decision aid.

Comparison of G8 and ISAR Screening Results in Geriatric Urology

Background: The G8 and ISAR scores are two different screening tools for geriatric risk factors and frailty. The aim of this study was to compare the G8 and ISAR screening results in a cohort of urogeriatric patients to help clinicians to better understand and choose between the two tests. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 100 patients at the age of 75 and above who were treated for different urological conditions. All routinely and prospectively underwent G8 and ISAR screening tests. A G8 score ≤ 14 and an ISAR score > 2 were considered positive. The results for the two tests were compared and correlated to clinical data. Results: The mean age of the patients was 83 y (min. 75–max. 101); 78 of the patients were male, while 22 were female; 58 of the patients were G8-positive, while 42 were G8-negative; and 24 were ISAR-positive, while 76 ISAR were negative. All the ISAR-positive patients were also G8-positive. There was a significant negative correlation between the G8 and ISAR scores (r = −0.77, p < 0.001). Both tests correlated significantly with the Charlson comorbidity index, length of stay, number of coded diagnosis, and Braden score (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Both tests are significantly correlated with each other and to clinical data related to geriatric frailty. However, the G8 score has a much higher rate of positive tests, which limits its use in daily routine, and the ISAR score is therefore preferable. For “fit” geriatric patients, however, a negative G8 score can be of great use as a confirmatory test for further decision making.