Liu, Shan W.

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 Objectives This portion of the Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines 2.0 focuses on delirium in the emergency department (ED). Methods A multidisciplinary group applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and develop recommendations related to older ED patients with possible delirium. Results The GED Guidelines 2.0 Delirium Work Group derived six evidence‐based recommendations for risk stratification, diagnosis, and brain imaging. To reduce universal screening, the Delirium Risk Score may be used to identify older adults at low risk for delirium, though the evidence certainty is very low. In adults over 65 admitted to ED observation units, Zucchelli's risk assessment tool (threshold ≥ 4) may stratify delirium risk, also with very low certainty. For adults over 75, the REDEEM Score may be used to identify low‐ or high‐risk individuals, again with very low certainty. For diagnosis, 4AT, bCAM, CAM‐ICU, mCAM, AMT‐4, or RASS may be used to rule delirium in or out, based on very low certainty. The Delirium Triage Screen (DTS) may be used to rule out, but not to rule in, delirium, also with very low certainty. For diagnostic imaging, there is very low certainty of evidence to recommend for or against obtaining a head CT as part of the evaluation for older ED patients with delirium. All recommendations are conditional, reflecting very low certainty of evidence due to the lack of high‐quality ED‐based studies and comparative effectiveness research. Conclusion Rigorous ED‐based research is needed to strengthen evidence and guide delirium care for older adults in geriatric emergency medicine.

Introduction The rapidly growing population of older adults (individuals aged 65 years and older) presents a new set of challenges for healthcare providers in the emergency department (ED), given the prevalence of severe and life-threatening conditions among this group, such as chronic cancer, Alzheimer’s disease/dementia and congestive heart failure. ED encounters often represent a critical point in an older patient’s trajectory of care and can thus be an important opportunity for various interventions such as palliative care consultation. Therefore, identifying those who will benefit most from palliative care is of high importance, especially in determining the course of future treatment. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review assessing the efficacy of palliative care screening in the ED by assessing inpatient length of stay as the primary outcome and quality of life, percentage of hospitalisation and cost of care as secondary outcomes. Methods This study will use Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane as databases. The study population comprises adults aged 60 years and older, with no focus on any specific clinical specialty or disease. Patients who have not received palliative care screening will serve as the comparator. Only studies with an applicable comparator will be considered. Studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2025 will be included. All articles will be reviewed independently and in duplicate, and every author will participate in the review, data abstraction and conflict resolution process. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024562389.

Background Delirium is a state of acute brain failure causing confusion, reduced focus, and changes in alertness. It is common in older patients, occurring in 6-38% of older emergency department (ED) patients. Evidence suggests that systematic screening improves detection rates and early detection, management and reporting are critical. However, examples of operationalizing this in clinical non-research care are scarce. Objective To describe and disseminate examples of best practices for delirium screening, management, and monitoring within the ED. Methods A group of emergency physicians interested in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) and evidence-based medicine gathered monthly to discuss ways of implementing delirium care. Members were asked to submit any electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions for delirium in current use at their institutions. One group member categorized the EHR tools by their use for screening, prevention, management, and monitoring of delirium. As a group, categorizations were reviewed and agreed upon and similarities, differences and themes were identified. Results Current EHR interventions from 5 EDs were included. We found that: 1) Screening for delirium in EDs is challenging due to the nature of the environment and the variety of tools available. 2) Prevention tools included order sets. 3) Management was accomplished with best practice alerts and order sets to help screen, prevent, address underlying causes, and manage agitation. Delirium prevention order sets emphasize optimizing patient mobility, comfort, and communication. Assessment order sets include routine labs and consultations, while management order sets for agitation provide safe medication options considering older adults’ unique physiology. 4) Utilizing dashboards for compliance monitoring offers real-time feedback, and provides an overview of adherence to clinical guidelines, regulatory standards, and patient safety protocols. Conclusion These real-world examples can be used in EDs implementing delirium programs. Further studies on how EHR interventions impact screening, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium in the ED are needed.

Abstract Background The increasing prevalence of dementia poses significant challenges for emergency department (ED) care, as persons living with dementia (PLWD) more frequently experience adverse outcomes such as delirium, prolonged stays, and higher mortality rates. Despite advancements in care strategies, a critical gap remains in understanding how ED interventions impact outcomes in this vulnerable population. This systematic review aims to identify evidence‐based ED care interventions tailored to PLWD to improve outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Scopus (Elsevier), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global through September 2024. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024586555). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and quality improvement initiatives focused on ED interventions for PLWD. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Outcomes included patient satisfaction, ED revisits, functional decline, and mortality. Results From 3305 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included nonpharmacologic therapies (e.g., music and light therapy), specialized geriatric ED units, and assessment tools, such as for pain. Tailored interventions including geriatric emergency units and community paramedic care transitions were effective in reducing 30‐day ED revisits and hospitalizations. However, heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes precluded meta‐analysis. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion This review underscores the urgent need for standardized and evidence‐based interventions in ED settings for PLWD. Approaches including multidisciplinary care models and nonpharmacologic therapies demonstrated potential for improving outcomes. Future research should prioritize consistent outcome measures, interdisciplinary collaboration, and person‐centered care strategies to enhance the quality and equity of ED services for PLWD.

AbstractIntroductionOlder adults are at high risk of adverse health outcomes in the post–emergency department (ED) discharge period. Prior work has shown that discharged older adults have variable understanding of their discharge instructions which may contribute to these outcomes. To identify discharge comprehension gaps amenable to future interventions, we utilize meta‐analysis to determine patient comprehension across five domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, medications, self‐care, routine follow‐up, and return precautions.MethodsUsing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, two reviewers sourced evidence from databases including Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (for gray literature). Publications or preprints appearing before April 2024 were included if they focused on geriatric ED discharge instructions and reported a proportion of patients with comprehension of at least one of five predefined discharge components. Meta‐analysis of eligible studies for each component was executed using random‐effects modeling to describe the proportion of geriatric ED cases understanding the discharge instructions; where appropriate we calculated pooled estimates, reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOf initial records returned (N = 2898), exclusions based on title or abstract assessment left 51 studies for full‐text review; of these, seven constituted the study set. Acceptable heterogeneity and absence of indication of publication bias supported pooled estimates for proportions comprehending instructions on medications (41%, 95% CI 31%–50%, I2 = 43%), self‐care (81%, 95% CI 76%–85%, I2 = 43%), and routine follow‐up (76%, 95% CI 72%–79%, I2 = 25%). Key findings included marked heterogeneity with respect to comprehending two discharge parameters: diagnosis (I2 = 73%) and return precautions (I2 = 95%).ConclusionsOlder patients discharged from the ED had greater comprehension of self‐care and follow‐up instructions than about their medications. These findings suggest that medication instructions may be a priority domain for future interventions.

Abstract Introduction Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test–treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening. Methods We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta‐analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds. Results Full‐text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta‐analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7–20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR−] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09–0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta‐analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test‐4 (AMT‐4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4–7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR− (0.22, 95% CI 0.05–1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM‐ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%. Conclusions The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED‐based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM‐ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single‐center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single‐center study.