Carpenter, Christopher R.

AbstractWith the approval of disease modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease, the practice of dementia care and treatment has changed. Amyloid related imaging changes, are the most common adverse effects of these types of drugs. There is limited guidance across multiple specialties on how to recognize and manage these changes in a dementia patient population. The use of these types of drugs for treatment, impacts multiple stakeholders regarding how they manage and treat dementia patients. ns. Thus the use of these types of drugs, involve multiple stakeholders with different perspectives on how they perceive their role in care and overall treatment plans. In order to optimize collaborative care in the ED setting, recognizing how ARIA may present in a patient who seeks care in the ED, and what types of treatment options are available are needed.

AbstractAging adults worldwide are presenting to the emergency department with acute and subacute illness and injury confounded by often unrecognized cognitive impairment, including dementia and delirium. Conveying medical information and weighing various diagnostic and therapeutic approaches during times of emergency is difficult for all aging adults. In adult ED populations without dementia, communication is imperfect with incomplete recollection of test results, presumptive diagnoses, prescriptions, and follow‐up recommendations. Communication strategies striving to improve ED nurse/physician‐to‐patient information exchange such as TeachBack are ineffective in non‐dementia populations and untested in subsets with dementia or their care partners. Increasingly, healthcare disparities associated with dementia detection and interventions are acknowledged. For example, limited health literacy is one source of disparity, interacts with the severity of dementia, is one communication barrier, and yet is not routinely evaluated in ED settings. Shared Decision Making is an evolving approach to engage patients and families in complex medical conversations, but emergency medicine shared decision making research often excludes individuals with dementia by design. This session will explore theoretical opportunities to improve medical decision‐making during times of emergency for persons living with dementia and their care partners.

AbstractBackgroundImpaired cognition is prevalent in older adults in the emergency department (ED), but many cases go unrecognized. The Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8) is a validated, self‐administered screening tool that can be used by patients and caregivers to assess for early cognitive changes associated with dementia. However, little is known regarding the degree of alignment between respondents in the ED setting. Our objective was to assess the agreement between the patient‐(pAD8) versus caregiver‐completed AD8 (cAD8).MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of community‐dwelling older adults aged 65+ years seeking emergency care and their caregivers between October 2021 and November 2023. Patients with a diagnosis of dementia indicated in the electronic health record were excluded. Collected by trained research assistants, AD8 scores ranged from 0‐8, with scores 2+ indicating cognitive impairment. Patients and caregivers were blinded to the others’ AD8 rating. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the agreement of the presence or absence of cognitive impairment based on pAD8 and cAD8 scores.ResultsOur analytic sample included 538 dyads, of which 34.7% of patients were male with a mean age of 73.5. A total of 132 (24.5%) patients scored themselves as cognitively impaired versus 201 (37.4%) patients were scored as cognitively impaired by their caregivers. Between groups, an ICC of 0.519 (95% CI 0.454‐0.578) demonstrated moderate agreement in identifying cognitive impairment based on pAD8 and cAD8 scores.ConclusionApproximately 1 in 4 older adults without a dementia diagnosis in the emergency department identified themselves as having cognitive impairment, with caregivers even more likely to identify cognitive impairment in accompanied older adult patients. With current guidance suggesting that the pAD8 be used in the absence of the cAD8, these findings highlight important differences to account for based on the respondent when screening for cognitive impairment.

Abstract Introduction The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network 2.0‐Advancing Dementia Care (GEAR 2.0‐ADC) aims to advance research efforts to improve the emergency care of persons living with dementia (PLWDs). Objective To support this objective, GEAR 2.0‐ADC convened a virtual consensus conference to prioritize emergency care research opportunities for PLWDs inclusive of perspectives of PLWDs to ensure identification of research gaps in response to their experiences and priorities. Inclusion of PLWDs as research partners is increasingly recognized as a best practice, however, approaches to facilitating consensus participation are lacking. Methods Best practices for supporting the engagement of PLWDs in a consensus conference, applied across its three phases (pre‐conference, during the conference, and post‐conference), include: establishing a learning environment focused on research priorities before the event, presenting information in ways that align with participants' learning preferences while accommodating cognitive impairments, and providing multiple opportunities and methods for gathering post‐conference feedback from PLWDs. Results These strategies were identified by PLWDs and care partners (CPs) through semi‐structured interviews, who were involved in the convening process, aimed at exploring ways to enhance facilitation techniques for participants. Conclusion Additionally, these summarized insights aim to encourage the use of community‐engaged approaches in discussions and consensus‐building around research priorities in emergency care, particularly for PLWDs and their CPs.

AbstractIntroductionOlder adults are at high risk of adverse health outcomes in the post–emergency department (ED) discharge period. Prior work has shown that discharged older adults have variable understanding of their discharge instructions which may contribute to these outcomes. To identify discharge comprehension gaps amenable to future interventions, we utilize meta‐analysis to determine patient comprehension across five domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, medications, self‐care, routine follow‐up, and return precautions.MethodsUsing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, two reviewers sourced evidence from databases including Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (for gray literature). Publications or preprints appearing before April 2024 were included if they focused on geriatric ED discharge instructions and reported a proportion of patients with comprehension of at least one of five predefined discharge components. Meta‐analysis of eligible studies for each component was executed using random‐effects modeling to describe the proportion of geriatric ED cases understanding the discharge instructions; where appropriate we calculated pooled estimates, reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOf initial records returned (N = 2898), exclusions based on title or abstract assessment left 51 studies for full‐text review; of these, seven constituted the study set. Acceptable heterogeneity and absence of indication of publication bias supported pooled estimates for proportions comprehending instructions on medications (41%, 95% CI 31%–50%, I2 = 43%), self‐care (81%, 95% CI 76%–85%, I2 = 43%), and routine follow‐up (76%, 95% CI 72%–79%, I2 = 25%). Key findings included marked heterogeneity with respect to comprehending two discharge parameters: diagnosis (I2 = 73%) and return precautions (I2 = 95%).ConclusionsOlder patients discharged from the ED had greater comprehension of self‐care and follow‐up instructions than about their medications. These findings suggest that medication instructions may be a priority domain for future interventions.

Background: Stroke guideline statements are important references for clinicians due to the rapidly evolving nature of treatments. Guideline statements should be informed by up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) because they provide the highest level of evidence. To investigate the utilization of SRs/MAs in stroke management guidelines, we conducted a literature review of guidelines and extracted relevant information regarding SRs/MAs. Methods: A literature review was conducted in PubMed with supplementation using the Trip medical database with the term “stroke” as the target population, followed by using the filter “guidelines”. We extracted the number of included SRs/MAs, the years of publication, the country of origin, and other characteristics of interest. Descriptive statistics were generated using the R software version 4.2.1. Results: We included 27 guideline statements. The median number of overall SRs or MAs within the guidelines was 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 2–9). For MAs only, the median number included in the guidelines was 3.0 (IQR = 2.0–5.5). Canadian guidelines had the oldest citations, with a median gap of 12.0 (IQR = 5.2–18.0) years for the oldest citation, followed by European (median = 12; IQR = 9.5–13.5) and US (median = 10.0; IQR = 5.2–16) guidelines. Conclusions: Stroke guideline writing groups and issuing bodies should devote greater effort to the inclusion of up-to-date SRs/MAs in their guideline statements so that clinicians can reference recent data with the highest level of evidence.

Abstract Introduction The intersection of ageism and racism is underexplored in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) research. Methods We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department‐based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting. Results After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full‐text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non‐English primary languages. Conclusion Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non‐English primary languages.

Abstract Purpose Sepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider‐to‐provider emergency department (ED)‐based telehealth consultation (tele‐ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county‐level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele‐ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated. Methods We used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele‐ED use. Findings Our study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele‐ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele‐ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele‐ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38). Conclusions Tele‐ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele‐ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.

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.