Goldberg, Elizabeth

ABSTRACT Background One in five emergency department (ED) visits is by older adults aged 65+ years. Clinical practice guidelines are needed to optimize patient care by translating the best available evidence into actionable recommendations to guide person‐centered management for this medically complex and growing patient population. Our objective was to understand contributors' experiences and share best practices to inform other guideline working groups. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on thematic analysis with an interpretivist paradigm in June–July 2025, using semi‐structured interviews of Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines 2.0 contributors to understand their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, independently reviewed by team members, and reflexively coded to identify themes. Results We interviewed 18 participants. Four main themes emerged: (1) motivations for participation, (2) varying opportunities to be involved, (3) personal benefits, and (4) challenges for improvement. Participants contrasted the strengths of shared learning and development with the burdens of organization and coordination. Conclusion Contributors to the GED Guidelines 2.0 reported a positive experience. They joined because they wanted to contribute to better care of older patients and to achieve personal and professional goals. Many cited that their roles aligned with their strengths and expertise. They also gained skills and knowledge on systematic reviews and benefited from networking. Future groups planning a similar process should consider having multiple levels of leadership, experts in systematic reviews, regular reminders, and creative incentives to improve the process and foster improved networking opportunities within their disciplines.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care.MethodsWith the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science‐Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post–emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full‐text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk‐of‐bias (RoB) assessments.ResultsOur search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1–3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4–6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality.ConclusionsPROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Abstract Reducing adverse drug events among older adults in heterogeneous and often chaotic emergency department (ED) settings requires a multidisciplinary approach. Recent research evaluates the impact of multicomponent protocols designed to reduce ED physician prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), including transdisciplinary training and leveraging electronic health records to provide real‐time alternative safer pharmaceuticals while providing personalized feedback to prescribers. Most new research is not randomized trial data. Although this current research does not consistently demonstrate a reduction in the prescribing of PIMs, these studies provide a foundation for emergency medicine healthcare teams, geriatricians, and pharmacists to collaborate with health informatics to continue advancing the frontiers of safer medication prescribing during episodes of acute care.