Platts‐Mills, Timothy F.

ABSTRACT Objectives Multicenter research of geriatric emergency department (GED) care remains limited. Our objectives were to: 1. Prospectively collect data prioritized by the Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) network, a transdisciplinary taskforce for GED care, and create a multicenter GED research repository of prospective and electronic health record (EHR) data, 2. Assess concordance between prospective and EHR data. Methods The GEAR Standardization Study (GEARSS) is a multicenter, prospective study of older emergency department (ED) patients (65+) focusing on the 4Ms of age‐friendly care (mobility, medication safety, mentation, what matters) and elder mistreatment. Demographic and clinical data were collected via interviews by trained research assistants (RA) on Days 0, 4, 30, and 90 and linked to EHR. Prevalence of chronic comorbidities and incident delirium were measured and reported using descriptive statistics. Prospective and EHR data concordance was assessed with Cohen's Kappa. Results 999 participants were recruited from 5 EDs (3/25/2021–6/30/2022) across 3 institutions: Grady Health System, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and Yale New Haven Health. The cohort was 57.0% female, 55.2% White, 39.1% Black, and 3.4% Hispanic, and the mean age was 75.1 years. For rheumatologic disease, peptic ulcer disease, diabetes, renal disease, and cancer, prevalence differed between prospective and EHR data by > 10%. About two‐thirds of participants were at risk for falls. Concordance between prospective and EHR data was good for ethnicity ( K = 0.73); excellent for sex ( K = 1.00), age ( K = 1.00), and race ( K = 0.98); fair for disposition ( K = 0.53); slight for ED observation status ( K = 0.33) and dementia diagnosis ( K = 0.24); poor for delirium presence ( K = 0.07). Conclusion In GEARSS, demographic variables aligned strongly between prospective and EHR data, while diagnosis, disposition, and mentation factors did not. This multicenter data source provides preliminary findings for common geriatric syndromes and conditions. Choice of measures using these data should be driven by GED research questions.

ABSTRACT Background Existing risk scores assessing geriatric vulnerability in the emergency department (ED) have shown limited predictive power, especially in diverse populations. We investigated the relationship of a quick and easy‐to‐administer geriatric vulnerability scoring system with functional decline and mortality in older patients admitted to multiple hospitals through the ED in the United States (US) and Brazil (BR). Method Federated, international, multicenter observational study of hospitalized ED patients aged ≥ 65 from US and BR. The six criteria from the PRO‐AGE score (Physical impairment, Recent hospitalization, Older age [≥ 90], Acute mental alteration, Getting thinner, and Exhaustion; 0–8; higher scores = greater vulnerability) were assessed on admission. We used proportional hazards models to investigate the relationships between PRO‐AGE score groups and 90‐day mortality and functional decline, defined as new dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL), after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, Charlson comorbidity score, and study site. Death was considered a competing event for the functional decline outcome. Results A total of 1390 patients were included (US = 560; Brazil = 830). The 90‐day risk of death was higher for the upper compared with the lower (reference) PRO‐AGE group in both cohorts (US: HR = 11.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.56–54.04; BR: HR = 12.29; 95% CI = 3.54–42.59), whereas the risk of new 90‐day ADL disability was higher for upper (HR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.21–3.56) and middle groups (HR = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.35–3.27) in the US but only the upper group in BR (HR = 1.70; 95% CI = 1.02–2.85). Conclusion A higher PRO‐AGE score was associated with mortality and functional decline in older ED patients admitted to hospitals in the US and BR, demonstrating its generalizability as a geriatric vulnerability risk score.

Abstract Objective To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. Design Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). Setting 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. Participants 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. Intervention A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. Main outcome measures Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. Results 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). Conclusions User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642 .

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the optimal use of shared decision making (SDM) to guide palliative and end‐of‐life decisions in the emergency department (ED).ObjectiveThe objective was to convene a working group to develop a set of research questions that, when answered, will substantially advance the ability of clinicians to use SDM to guide palliative and end‐of‐life care decisions in the ED.MethodsParticipants were identified based on expertise in emergency, palliative, or geriatrics care; policy or patient‐advocacy; and spanned physician, nursing, social work, legal, and patient perspectives. Input from the group was elicited using a time‐staggered Delphi process including three teleconferences, an open platform for asynchronous input, and an in‐person meeting to obtain a final round of input from all members and to identify and resolve or describe areas of disagreement.ConclusionKey research questions identified by the group related to which ED patients are likely to benefit from palliative care (PC), what interventions can most effectively promote PC in the ED, what outcomes are most appropriate to assess the impact of these interventions, what is the potential for initiating advance care planning in the ED to help patients define long‐term goals of care, and what policies influence palliative and end‐of‐life care decision making in the ED. Answers to these questions have the potential to substantially improve the quality of care for ED patients with advanced illness.