Southerland, Lauren T

ABSTRACT Background Fall risk screening and prevention interventions initiated from the Emergency Department (ED) are endorsed by current national guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ED‐based multi‐factorial and multi‐component interventions to prevent falls. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of interventions for fall prevention initiated in the ED for older patients (age ≥ 60 years). Multi‐component and multi‐factorial interventions were included. We excluded studies without a control or comparison group. The published literature was searched from 2019 to May 2024. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa tool for observation studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias v2 for randomized trials. A meta‐analysis was completed for the outcomes with multiple studies. Results The search resulted in 6312 abstracts with 2571 duplicates, for 3741 unique citations. A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review; 5 were rated as high risk of bias/low quality. The articles were heterogenous in the intervention type (8 multi‐factorial and 8 multi‐component), setting (ED focused vs. outpatient), intervention components (i.e., nurses, physicians, therapists), and size (103–1435 participants). The interventions did not decrease risk of falls at 3 months (risk difference 0.05 95% CI [0.00; 0.09]), 6 months (0.07 [−0.04; 0.18]) or 12 months (−0.02 [−0.11; 0.07]). ED revisits at 1 month (−0.01 [−0.03; 0.00]), 3 months (−0.04 [−0.14; 0.06]), and 12 months (0.02 [−0.05; 0.25]) were also unchanged. Mortality and hospitalization rates were also unaffected. Improvement in functional status was noted in 4 of 5 studies reporting this outcome. Conclusions Multi‐factorial and multi‐component fall prevention interventions initiated from the ED did not decrease falls or recurrent healthcare use. These interventions may improve functional status in older adults at fall risk. Comparisons are limited by the heterogeneity in types of interventions, intervention compliance, and timing of outcomes.

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 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.

ABSTRACT Background Geriatric screening and multidisciplinary assessment of older adults in the Emergency Department (ED) decrease hospitalizations and ED revisits. The impact on patient‐reported outcomes of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional status is not known. Methods A hybrid type II implementation/effectiveness prospective cohort study was conducted in an academic ED. The intervention bundle was geriatric screening for delirium, fall risk, and transition of care needs, and multidisciplinary assessment. All older adults (≥ 65 years) placed in the ED observation unit were eligible. HRQoL and functional status were obtained at the ED visit, 30, and 90 days, and were compared between the pre‐ and post‐intervention implementation cohorts. Secondary outcomes included ED revisits, falls, mortality, and intervention adoption measures. Results From 2019 to 2023, 368 adults participated in the study: Most were community‐dwelling (97%) and had multiple comorbidities. The pre ( n = 138) and post ( n = 230) cohorts did not differ in baseline functional status or HRQoL. The rate of geriatric screening improved from 12.3% in the pre‐implementation cohort to 91.3% in the post‐implementation cohort ( p < 0.01). Multispecialty consultation also increased (68.1%–91.3%, p < 0.01). The proportion who had a post‐ED visit decline in functional status did not differ between cohorts. Physical HRQoL declined similarly in both cohorts (−0.73 vs. −0.33, p = 0.61) at 90 days. Mental HRQoL improved in both cohorts; improvement was greater in the pre‐cohort (2.35 vs. 0.32, p = 0.02). ED revisits and re‐hospitalizations were unchanged (30 days: 23.0% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.18, and 90 days: 37.8% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.57). The intervention decreased falls at 30 and 90 days (30 days: 9.7% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.04; 90 days: 22.1% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Geriatric screening in the ED increased identification of geriatric syndromes and multidisciplinary consultation. The intervention was associated with decreased falls but did not affect HRQoL or reduce functional decline post ED visit. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov : NCT04068311

AbstractBackgroundThe Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines recommend screening older patients for need for evaluation by geriatric medicine, physical therapy (PT), and occupational therapy (OT), but explicit evidence that geriatric screening changes care compared to physician gestalt is lacking. We assessed changes in multidisciplinary consultation after implementation of standardized geriatric screening in the ED.MethodsRetrospective single‐site observational cohort of older adult ED patients from 2019 to 2023 with three time periods: (1) preimplementation, (2) implementation of geriatric screening, and (3) postimplementation. Geriatric, PT, and OT consultations/referrals were available during all time periods. Descriptive analysis was stratified by disposition: discharged, observation and discharged, observation and hospital admission, and hospital admission. The independent variable was completion of three geriatric screening tools by ED nurses. The dependent variable was consultation and/or referral to geriatrics, PT, and OT. Secondary outcomes were disposition, ED revisits, and 30‐day rehospitalizations.ResultsThere were 57,775 qualifying ED visits of patients age ≥ 65 years during the time periods: implementation increased geriatric screening from 0.5% to 63.2%; postimplementation, discharge patients who received screening had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (1.5% vs. 0.4%), PT (7.9% vs. 1.9%), and OT (6.5% vs. 1.2%) compared to unscreened patients. Patients observed and then discharged had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (15.1% vs. 11.3%), PT (74.1% vs. 64.5%), and OT (65.7% vs. 56.5%). Admitted patients had no change in consultation rates. Geriatric screening was not associated with a change in 7‐day ED revisits for discharged patients but was associated with decreased revisits for patients discharged from observation (11.6% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.001).ConclusionGeriatric screening was associated with increased consultations/referrals to geriatrics, PT, and OT in the ED and ED observation unit. This suggests that geriatric screening changes ED care for older adults.