Carpenter, Kayla P

Objectives: To determine the frequency with which emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians recognize patients enrolled in hospice and describe their prehospital management. Methods: Observational cohort study of patients enrolled in hospice who were transported by EMS within a health system between May 5, 2018, and June 4, 2023. Two physicians reviewed each encounter to determine whether interventions were comfort-focused (hospice philosophy) or life-sustaining care. Interrater reliability was 100% (k = 1.0). Descriptive statistics are provided. Results: EMS clinicians identified hospice enrollment in 51% ( n = 46) of 88 encounters. Most patients (90%, n = 79) received comfort-focused care. Life-sustaining care was provided to four patients identified as hospice-enrolled and included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, an advanced airway, and vasopressors ( n = 1, 25%); spinal immobilization ( n = 2, 50%), and naloxone ( n = 1, 25%). Conclusion: Most patients received care consistent with the philosophy of hospice. However, EMS clinicians may have only identified half of patients enrolled in hospice. This demonstrates an opportunity to improve recognition of patients’ care preferences, starting in the out-of-hospital setting.

Importance Validation of prognostic tools is an essential component of their integration into clinical practice. Objective To validate 4 delirium risk stratification tools in an independent emergency department (ED) cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study included a retrospective cohort of patients 65 years or older who presented to an academic ED between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2024. Data were analyzed from February 10 to August 21, 2025. Exposure Delirium screening included the Delirium Triage Screen followed by the brief Confusional Assessment Method as part of the standard of care. Four delirium risk scores were obtained, including the Kennedy rule, the Zucchelli rule, the Mayo Delirium Prediction (MDP) tools, and the Recognizing Delirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes included risk score performances and diagnostic test accuracy measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes were discriminative and calibration measures. Results A total of 44 578 patients were included, of whom 1701 (3.8%) were diagnosed with delirium. The median age was 80.0 (IQR, 75.0-85.0) years, and 22 786 patients (51.1%) were female. The Kennedy rule had an AUROC of 0.777 (95% CI, 0.766-0.789). At a cutoff of 5, sensitivity was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.52-0.57); specificity, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.85); positive LR, 3.54 (95% CI, 3.37-3.72); negative LR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.51-0.57); PPV, 0.12 (95% CI, 0.12-0.13); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The Zucchelli tool had an AUROC of 0.701 (95% CI, 0.686-0.713). At a cutoff of 5, sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.70); specificity, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.66); positive LR, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.92-2.06); negative LR, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.45-0.52); PPV, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.07-0.08); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The MDP tool had an AUROC of 0.898 (95% CI, 0.891-0.905). At a 30% cutoff, sensitivity was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.53); specificity, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.95-0.95); positive LR, 9.69 (95% CI, 9.11-10.31); negative LR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.50-0.55); PPV, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The REDEEM score demonstrated the highest AUROC at 0.921 (95% CI, 0.914-0.929). Using a cutoff of 11 or greater, sensitivity was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81-0.85); specificity, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.92), negative LR, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.17-0.20); positive LR, 9.91 (95% CI, 9.54-10.29); PPV, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.27-0.29); and NPV, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance In this prognostic study comparing 4 delirium tools to improve delirium detection and identify high-risk patients, the REDEEM score and the MDP tool had better performance for delirium detection in the ED. These findings lay the groundwork for integrating validated risk stratification into ED workflows to improve early delirium detection and inform prevention strategies for high-risk older adults.

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.

AbstractObjectiveTransgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).MethodsRetrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.ResultsWe identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20–32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1–3] vs. 2 [1–4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4–7] vs. 6 [4–7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non‐TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).ConclusionThere was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.