Curiati, Pedro Kallas

ABSTRACT Background Delirium predicts adverse outcomes in older emergency department (ED) patients, but many acutely ill patients without delirium have underlying cognitive impairment that goes unrecognized. Whether cognitive impairment screening improves risk prediction beyond delirium remains uncertain. We compared practical bedside screening strategies for delirium, cognitive impairment, or both for predicting 90‐day functional decline and mortality in older adults admitted from the ED. Methods A prospective cohort comprising patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted from the ED of a large hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Trained professionals screened for delirium using the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) and for cognitive impairment using the 10‐point Cognitive Screener (10‐CS). Patients were classified as having normal cognition (bCAM negative, 10‐CS > 5), delirium (bCAM positive), or cognitive impairment without delirium (bCAM negative, 10‐CS ≤ 5). Blinded investigators assessed decline in basic activities of daily living (ADL) and mortality within 90 days of admission. Fine‐Gray models (death as a competing risk) and Cox models estimated associations with outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results Among 830 patients (mean age = 80 ± 9 years; women = 47%), 427 (51.5%) had normal cognition, 171 (20.6%) had delirium, and 232 (27.9%) had cognitive impairment without delirium. Among delirium‐negative patients with cognitive impairment, 52% had no documented dementia diagnosis or reported memory problems. Compared with normal cognition, cognitive impairment without delirium was associated with 90‐day functional ADL decline (sub‐HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.03–2.49) and mortality (HR = 2.31; 95% CI = 1.18–4.51), with risks similar to those observed in delirium. A staged strategy (bCAM first, then 10‐CS if bCAM negative) showed higher discrimination than delirium‐only or 10‐CS‐only screening. Conclusions Cognitive impairment without delirium is common, often unrecognized, and predicts 90‐day adverse outcomes in older patients admitted from the ED. A brief staged screening strategy integrating delirium assessment with cognitive impairment testing among delirium‐negative patients may enhance early detection of cognitive vulnerability and support care planning.

ABSTRACT Background Older adults are at high risk for severe injuries and death from falls. Physical therapist (PT) and occupational therapist (OT) evaluations have been introduced into Emergency Department (ED) care to assist with fall risk evaluation and fall prevention care. An evaluation of current evidence was undertaken to inform the Geriatric ED Guidelines 2.0. Methods Systematic review of physical and/or occupational therapy evaluation for fall prevention in the ED. The intervention was evaluation by a rehabilitation therapist (PT, OT, or both) for fall prevention, fall assessment, or mitigation of fall risk factors. Studies that did not perform the evaluation during the ED or ED Observation Unit visit were excluded, such as referrals for home consultation. The published literature was searched using strategies created by a medical librarian and was implemented in Embase and PubMed in March 2025. Covidence was used for article collation and review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias v2 and the Ottawa–Newcastle scale. Results The search resulted in 387 articles with 52 duplicates, for 335 unique citations. Ten articles on 6 datasets were included (4 abstracts and 6 published manuscripts). One article was at high risk of bias as very few intervention patients received therapist evaluation. The remaining 5 datasets had varied co‐interventions in addition to PT and/or OT evaluations. PT or OT evaluation in the ED was associated with reduced ED revisits at 1, 2, and 6 months. Evaluations in the ED were not associated with increased hospital admission rates or ED length of stay. A meta‐analysis was infeasible due to varied outcome timeframes. Conclusions PT and/or OT evaluations for fall prevention were associated with reduced subsequent ED revisits for older adults. However, the impact of co‐interventions and heterogeneity limits strong conclusions.

ABSTRACT Background Existing risk scores assessing geriatric vulnerability in the emergency department (ED) have shown limited predictive power, especially in diverse populations. We investigated the relationship of a quick and easy‐to‐administer geriatric vulnerability scoring system with functional decline and mortality in older patients admitted to multiple hospitals through the ED in the United States (US) and Brazil (BR). Method Federated, international, multicenter observational study of hospitalized ED patients aged ≥ 65 from US and BR. The six criteria from the PRO‐AGE score (Physical impairment, Recent hospitalization, Older age [≥ 90], Acute mental alteration, Getting thinner, and Exhaustion; 0–8; higher scores = greater vulnerability) were assessed on admission. We used proportional hazards models to investigate the relationships between PRO‐AGE score groups and 90‐day mortality and functional decline, defined as new dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL), after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, Charlson comorbidity score, and study site. Death was considered a competing event for the functional decline outcome. Results A total of 1390 patients were included (US = 560; Brazil = 830). The 90‐day risk of death was higher for the upper compared with the lower (reference) PRO‐AGE group in both cohorts (US: HR = 11.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.56–54.04; BR: HR = 12.29; 95% CI = 3.54–42.59), whereas the risk of new 90‐day ADL disability was higher for upper (HR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.21–3.56) and middle groups (HR = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.35–3.27) in the US but only the upper group in BR (HR = 1.70; 95% CI = 1.02–2.85). Conclusion A higher PRO‐AGE score was associated with mortality and functional decline in older ED patients admitted to hospitals in the US and BR, demonstrating its generalizability as a geriatric vulnerability risk score.

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to explore and externally validate the Carpenter instrument's efficacy in predicting postdischarge fall risk among older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) for reasons other than falls or related injuries.MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted on 779 patients aged ≥ 65 years from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, who were monitored for up to 6 months post‐ED hospitalization. The Carpenter instrument, which evaluates the four risk factors nonhealing foot sores, self‐reported depression, inability to self‐clip toenails, and prior falls, was utilized to assess fall risk. Follow‐up by telephone occurred at 30, 90, and 180 days to identify falls and mortality. Fine–Gray models estimated the predictive power of Carpenter instrument for future falls, considering death as a competing event and sociodemographic factors, frail status, and clinical measures as confounders.ResultsAmong 779 patients, 68 (9%) experienced a fall within 180 days post‐ED admission, and 88 (11%) died. The majority were male (54%), with a mean age of 79 years. Upon utilizing the Carpenter score, those with a higher fall risk (≥2 points) displayed more comorbidities, greater frailty, and increased clinical severity at baseline. Regression analyses showed that every additional point on the Carpenter score increased the hazard of falls by 73%. Two primary contributors to its predictive potential were identified: a history of falls in the preceding year and an inability to self‐clip toenails. However, the instrument's discriminative accuracy was suboptimal, with an area under the curve of 0.62.ConclusionsWhile the Carpenter instrument associated with a higher 6‐month postadmission fall risk among older adults post‐ED visit, its accuracy for individual patient decision making was limited. Given the significant impact of falls on health outcomes and health care costs, refining risk assessment tools remains essential. Future research should focus on enhancing these assessments and devising targeted proactive strategies.