Stanich, Jessica A.

ABSTRACT Background Older adults experience age‐related physiological changes that alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of certain medications, which may necessitate reduced dosing. Our objective was to assess emergency department (ED) and hospital outcomes of older patients administered opioids by emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians. Methods Retrospective cohort study of adults ≥ 65 years who received an opioid between 2019 and 2024 within a health system‐affiliated EMS agency. We excluded patients with an advanced airway and those with no documented weight. Maximum single and cumulative weight‐based opioid dosages were classified as low, therapeutic, or high. Outcomes were measured in the ED/hospital and compared using Poisson regression with Huber/White standard errors, adjusted for age, sex, vitals, Glascow Coma Scale, emergency severity index, and chief concern. Results were reported as adjusted risk ratios (aRRs). Results A total of 6406 patients, including 747 (11.7%, 95% CI: 10.9–12.5) with a high opioid dose, 3663 (57.2%, 95% CI: 56.0–58.4) with a therapeutic dose, and 1996 (31.2%, 95% CI: 30.0–32.3) with a low dose, were included. Receipt of a high maximum single opioid dose versus a low/therapeutic dose (excluding patients receiving a concomitant sedative) was associated with increased risk of altered responsiveness (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.58) and delirium (aRR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.08–5.45) in the ED/hospital setting. When 311 (4.9%) patients who received a concomitant sedative were included, patients who received a high opioid dose similarly had an increased risk of altered responsiveness (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.06–1.56) and delirium (RR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.25–5.59), compared to a low/therapeutic dose. There was no difference in outcomes of hypoxia, death within 30 days, or ED length of stay between dose groups. Conclusion Prehospital administration of high opioid doses to older patients was associated with increased rates of altered responsiveness and delirium. These findings highlight how out‐of‐hospital care can impact a patient's ED and hospital course.

Objectives Establishment of code status can be challenging in the acute care setting. The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate whether patients or their surrogate decision-makers were comfortable watching an educational video about resuscitation. Methods This interventional pilot study involved a pre- and a postintervention survey of a convenience sample of emergency department (ED) patients who were admitted to the hospital. The study was conducted at an academic level-1 trauma centre within the normal flow of patient care over 4 months in 2017. Results In total, 50 patients enrolled in the study. Among them, 82% were ‘very comfortable’ and 14% were ‘moderately comfortable’ watching the video. Overall, 61% of respondents were ‘very comfortable’ recommending the video to others. Watching the video resulted in a change in code status for 9 patients. Conclusions Our results indicate that patients felt comfortable watching the video and recommending the video for further use. Watching the video did not result in a change in code status for most patients in this study. The study results indicate that a standardised patient education video on resuscitation code status was acceptable to patients and their family members and has potential for increased use in the ED.

Abstract Objective The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high‐risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening. Methods This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO‐penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864–0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from –3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%–90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non‐ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%–88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%–95.8%). Conclusion A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium‐targeted screening of high‐risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

Introduction Delirium is commonly missed in older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). Although current recommendations for active screening of delirium in the ED, this might not be feasible or practical. Identifying patients at high risk for prevalent and incident delirium in the ED will help to improve the screening process and to build interventions. There is currently scattered synthesis of evidence on risk factors associated with delirium in the ED. To address this gap, we are conducting a systematic review to describe the risk factors (patient vulnerability factors and precipitating factors) for delirium in the ED. Methods and analysis A literature search was performed from inception to March 2020 in Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. We will include original research studies that report a quantitative relationship between at least one risk factor and delirium in the ED setting. Two investigators will use eligibility criteria from this protocol to independently screen titles and abstracts, and select studies based on full-text review of potentially eligible studies. After arriving at a final set of included studies, two investigators will extract data using a standardised data collection form. If appropriate, data regarding each risk factor will be pooled through a random-effect meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Ethics and dissemination To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review evaluating risk factors for prevalent and incident delirium specifically related to the ED setting. Results of this study will aid in the identification of older adults at risk for delirium in the ED. We aim to publish the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal with good visibility for the fields of emergency medicine and geriatrics. PROSPERO registration number CDR42020175261