Kennedy, Maura

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.

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.