Bower, Susan M.

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.

ABSTRACT Background The Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) guidelines recommend screening older adults for delirium using evidence‐based screening tools, but these tools are often underutilized. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing an electronic health record (EHR)‐based delirium screening tool as intended. Methods This mixed methods and focused ethnographic study combined a review of structured delirium screening data with observations of real‐time delirium screenings and semi‐structured in‐person interviews at an academic ED that previously implemented the Delirium Triage Screen (DTS) and Brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) tool. Content analysis of field notes from observations and interview transcripts was guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment implementation framework. Results From a total of 40,818 ED visits, 6196 (15.2%) had incomplete screens (i.e., without fidelity). We observed 62 encounters, of which 25 (40.3%) screenings were implemented without fidelity due to (1) not asking the required screening questions, (2) assuming patient responses, or (3) not completing the screen due to uncertainty regarding a patient's baseline mentation. We conducted 32 interviews. Identified barriers included staff prioritization of other tasks (e.g., stroke code, cleaning patients), limited knowledge of the screen's importance and utility, and language discordance. Facilitators included care partners providing baseline mental status information and nurses prefacing the screening to increase patient engagement. Conclusion The fidelity of ED delirium screening is influenced by an interplay of environmental, patient, provider, and caregiver factors. Fidelity may be improved by focusing education on the importance of screening, training screeners on how to determine whether a patient's mentation is acutely changed, providing clear action steps when a patient screens positive, and addressing how to administer the delirium screen to patients who do not speak English fluently.

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.