Carpenter, Christopher R.

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 Delirium predicts adverse outcomes in older emergency department (ED) patients, but many acutely ill patients without delirium have underlying cognitive impairment that goes unrecognized. Whether cognitive impairment screening improves risk prediction beyond delirium remains uncertain. We compared practical bedside screening strategies for delirium, cognitive impairment, or both for predicting 90‐day functional decline and mortality in older adults admitted from the ED. Methods A prospective cohort comprising patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted from the ED of a large hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Trained professionals screened for delirium using the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) and for cognitive impairment using the 10‐point Cognitive Screener (10‐CS). Patients were classified as having normal cognition (bCAM negative, 10‐CS > 5), delirium (bCAM positive), or cognitive impairment without delirium (bCAM negative, 10‐CS ≤ 5). Blinded investigators assessed decline in basic activities of daily living (ADL) and mortality within 90 days of admission. Fine‐Gray models (death as a competing risk) and Cox models estimated associations with outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results Among 830 patients (mean age = 80 ± 9 years; women = 47%), 427 (51.5%) had normal cognition, 171 (20.6%) had delirium, and 232 (27.9%) had cognitive impairment without delirium. Among delirium‐negative patients with cognitive impairment, 52% had no documented dementia diagnosis or reported memory problems. Compared with normal cognition, cognitive impairment without delirium was associated with 90‐day functional ADL decline (sub‐HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.03–2.49) and mortality (HR = 2.31; 95% CI = 1.18–4.51), with risks similar to those observed in delirium. A staged strategy (bCAM first, then 10‐CS if bCAM negative) showed higher discrimination than delirium‐only or 10‐CS‐only screening. Conclusions Cognitive impairment without delirium is common, often unrecognized, and predicts 90‐day adverse outcomes in older patients admitted from the ED. A brief staged screening strategy integrating delirium assessment with cognitive impairment testing among delirium‐negative patients may enhance early detection of cognitive vulnerability and support care planning.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cognitive impairment in hospitalized older adults without delirium is often undiagnosed. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of two brief bedside screening tools—the 10‐point Cognitive Screener (10‐CS) and Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). METHODS Multicenter prospective cohort of 2003 patients ≥65 years of age without delirium, admitted to 43 hospitals in five countries of the Creating a Hospital Assessment Network in Geriatrics (CHANGE) Study. Screening was completed within 48 h of admission. Dementia was defined as informant‐based Clinical Dementia Rating ≥1. RESULTS Dementia prevalence was 22%, with 35% undiagnosed. Both tools showed good accuracy for detecting dementia, with the 10‐CS slightly more accurate than SPMSQ (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87 vs 0.85; p = 0.02). After adjustment, cognitive impairment detected by either tool was associated with increased risk of incident delirium, hospital‐associated disability in self‐care activities, and 90‐day mortality, but not prolonged stay. DISCUSSION Brief bedside screening identified dementia and predicted adverse outcomes, supporting its integration into routine hospital care.

Variability and persistent gaps in reporting have been consistently observed across studies evaluating adverse events in healthcare, dating back to the early days of the patient safety movement. Incomplete descriptions—particularly missing details regarding study design, conduct, methodologies and applied definitions—impede interpretation, hinder critical appraisal and limit reproducibility. These deficiencies not only obstruct a shared understanding of findings but also diminish the overall impact such studies may have on patient safety initiatives and policy development. To address these challenges and enhance the quality of reporting, we developed the SESAME (Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error) reporting guideline. SESAME is a 44-item checklist designed to support comprehensive and standardised reporting in studies evaluating potential patient harm. The guideline was developed over a 2-year period by an international, multidisciplinary panel through a consensus-driven process aligned with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research Network standards.

Abstract Over 50% of older adults in the US take ≥5 medications, with prevalence reaching 76.8% in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, little is known about their medication self-efficacy (the ability to understand and follow medication regimens), which may influence adherence and adverse drug events when new prescriptions are added during ED visits. Our objective was to determine whether polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) are associated with self-efficacy. We performed a logistic regression analysis using 5-site multicenter ED survey data linked to electronic health records from patients aged ≥65 years with baseline ED visits during 2019-2021. The predictors were polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and PIM use (≥1 high-risk medication, GEMRx criteria) of prescriptions taken within 1 year of the ED visit. The outcome was low medication self-efficacy (< 11 points MUSE-taking score) assessed at the ED visit. Covariates included insurance, education, marital status, race/ethnicity, caregiver support, dementia status, and frailty. Among 921 patients, 249 (27.0%) had polypharmacy and 66 (7.2%) had PIM use. Low medication self-efficacy was reported by 76 (37.8%) with polypharmacy and 26 (12.9%) with PIM use versus 125 (62.2%) and 40 (5.6%) without. Both polypharmacy (aOR 6.12, 95% CI 2.05-18.22, p = 0.001) and PIM use (aOR 33.65, 95% CI 5.81-214.35, p < 0.001) were associated with greater adjusted odds of low medication self-efficacy. Frailty modified this association, with weaker effects in more frail patients (OR 5.51, 95% CI 2.57-11.8, p = 0.003). These findings suggest that the ED is an important setting to identify older adults who may struggle with medication use.

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.

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 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.

OBJECTIVES The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) cervical spine injury (CSI) clinical prediction rule (CPR) was developed to reduce unnecessary imaging in pediatric trauma patients and ensure accurate diagnosis. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to future implementation of this rule in diverse emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS We conducted 40 interviews with 48 clinicians, including ED physicians, surgeons, nurses, and advanced practice providers at 21 health care facilities across the United States. Semistructured interviews explored determinants impacting implementation, guided by the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. We conducted a deductive thematic analysis using the TICD domains as a priori codes. Three researchers independently coded the transcripts and identified key themes aligned with the TICD framework. RESULTS Barriers included limited guideline accessibility, workflow disruptions, and inconsistent integration with electronic health records. Clinicians’ concerns regarding the applicability and adherence to guidelines were also significant. Facilitators identified included institutional support, stakeholder engagement, and targeted education that addressed knowledge gaps. Implementation strategies varied by context, with suggestions for electronic health record-based decision tools in resource-equipped facilities and external aids, such as pocket cards, in lower-resource settings. Addressing legal concerns, clinician resistance, and workflow alignment emerged as critical priorities. CONCLUSION Implementing the PECARN CSI CPRs requires addressing contextual barriers such as workflow challenges, clinician adherence, and technology integration. Context-sensitive strategies are essential for successful adoption and improved decision-making in pediatric trauma care. Future research should evaluate the impact of these strategies on clinician behavior and patient outcomes.