Cameron, Lauren

Importance The emergency department (ED) offers an opportunity to initiate palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Objective To assess the effect of a multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, and survival in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Design, Setting, and Participants Cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, clinical trial including patients aged 66 years or older who visited 1 of 29 EDs across the US between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, had 12 months of prior Medicare enrollment, and a Gagne comorbidity score greater than 6, representing a risk of short-term mortality greater than 30%. Nursing home patients were excluded. Intervention A multicomponent intervention (the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine intervention) included (1) evidence-based multidisciplinary education; (2) simulation-based workshops on serious illness communication; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback for ED clinical staff. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was hospital admission. The secondary outcomes included subsequent health care use and survival at 6 months. Results There were 98 922 initial ED visits during the study period (median age, 77 years [IQR, 71-84 years]; 50% were female; 13% were Black and 78% were White; and the median Gagne comorbidity score was 8 [IQR, 7-10]). The rate of hospital admission was 64.4% during the preintervention period vs 61.3% during the postintervention period (absolute difference, −3.1% [95% CI, −3.7% to −2.5%]; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14]). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes before vs after the intervention. The rate of admission to an intensive care unit was 7.8% during the preintervention period vs 6.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.15]). The rate of at least 1 revisit to the ED was 34.2% during the preintervention period vs 32.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09]). The rate of hospice use was 17.7% during the preintervention period vs 17.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]). The rate of home health use was 42.0% during the preintervention period vs 38.1% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of at least 1 hospital readmission was 41.0% during the preintervention period vs 36.6% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of death was 28.1% during the preintervention period vs 28.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Conclusions and Relevance This multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED did not have an effect on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, or short-term mortality in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109

Abstract Introduction The intersection of ageism and racism is underexplored in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) research. Methods We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department‐based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting. Results After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full‐text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non‐English primary languages. Conclusion Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non‐English primary languages.