Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

13 citation(s) found for "Bağcı, Ulaş".

Polypharmacy and Medication Self-Efficacy in Older Emergency Department Patients
Sifnugel, Natalia, Han, Ling, Tomasino, Debra F. , Cohen, Inessa , Meeker, Daniella , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Hung, William W. , Hwang, Ula

Innovation in Aging | January 3, 2026 | Volume: 9 | Issue: Supplement_2 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4175 Get It

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.
Trends in older adults boarding in US EDs
Sifnugel, Natalia, Cruz, Daniel S. , Jeffery, Molly M, Carr, Brendan, Gettel, C., Jeffery, Molly Moore , Sangal, Rohit B. , Carr, Brendan M. , Dresden, Scott M. , Gettel, Cameron J. , Hwang, Ula

Innovation in Aging | January 3, 2026 | Volume: 9 | Issue: Supplement_2 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/geroni/igaf122.3349 Get It

Abstract Inpatient boarding (holding patients in the emergency department [ED] while awaiting an inpatient bed) is associated with increased risk of delirium, medication safety events, and hospital mortality in older adults. We investigated boarding trends across age strata to determine if older patients had elevated rates compared to younger patients. Administrative data for ED encounters resulting in admission from 3 healthcare systems (2 Midwest, 1 Northeast) from 1/1/19 to 12/31/24 were reviewed. Age was categorized by strata: < 21, 21-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥ 85. Based on the CMS Age Friendly Hospital Measures, the proportion of patients boarding for 3+ hours was calculated within each year and age strata. Boarding rates varied substantially by system and age group. At Systems 1 (S1) and 3 (S3), ≥ 85 patients had the highest rates (S1: 54.9%, S3: 70.9% in 2024) and, at System 2 (S2), all adult patients (21+) had similar rates (20.5-22.4% in 2024). Boarding rates increased in all systems over the study period. At S1 and S3, < 21 patients had the highest average yearly increase in boarding (S1: 7.4%, S3: 3.9%). At S2, boarding increased most in ≥ 85 (23.9%). In this multisystem evaluation, approximately one in two older adults experience ED boarding, with the oldest patients (≥ 85) facing the greatest exposure to boarding in recent years. These findings taken alongside known delays and safety risks associated with boarding and patient care complexity amongst the oldest adults may result in disproportionate harm to some of the most vulnerable patients.
Endothelial Cell Loss 1 Year After Successful DMEK in the Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study
Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Beck, Roy W., Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy N. , Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, Neal, Rosselson, Marie, Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V., Venkateswaran, Nandini, Cheung, Michael K., Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, G, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes , Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen, Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael, Ernst, L, Messer, Brooke, Risbrudt, Nick, Stofferahn, Seth, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Kollman, Craig, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula C, Keeler, D. K., Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth, Greiner, Mark A. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hood, Christopher, Sáles, Christopher S. , Sinkey, Chris, Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Epstein, Rachel H. , Vaidya, Neal, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Nguyen, Jessica, Greenwood, Michael, Messer, Brooke, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Price, Marianne O. , Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy W. , Kollman, Craig, McCarthy, Chris, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Sengupta, Paromita

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1053

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4261 | PMID 41105099 Get It

Importance The effect of cornea donor diabetes on endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphometry after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not known. Objective To determine whether endothelial cell loss (ECL) and morphometric changes 1 year after successful DMEK are related to cornea donor’s diabetes status. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2024 at 28 US clinical sites (46 surgeons) and 13 eye banks. Included in the trial were the eyes of recipients (some of whom received tissue from donors without diabetes and others who received tissue from donors with diabetes) who underwent successful DMEK, primarily for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, and had at least 1 analyzable postoperative endothelial image. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures ECD, ECL, coefficient of variation in cell area (CV), and percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX) at 1 year from eye bank and postoperative specular central endothelial images. Results A total 1274 eyes of 982 recipients (mean [SD] age, 70 [8] years; 569 female [57.9%]; 816 [64.1%] with tissue from donors without diabetes and 458 [35.9%] with tissue from donors with diabetes) were included in the study. Preoperatively, mean (SD) central ECD in tissue from donors without diabetes and with diabetes were 2676 (290) cells/mm 2 and 2671 (286) cells/mm 2 , respectively. At 1 year, mean (SD) ECL was 28.3% (16.1%) and 28.0% (17.0%), in the donor groups without and with diabetes, respectively (adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 1.4%), resulting in a mean (SD) 1-year ECD of 1927 (498) cells/mm 2 and 1920 (496) cells/mm 2 , respectively (adjusted mean difference = 10 cells/mm 2 ; 95% CI, −36 to 56; P = .95). No difference in ECD at 1 year associated with diabetes severity was noted ( P = .97). Mean (SD) CV did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (31.5% [4.1%] vs 31.4% [4.1%]; adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −0.9% to 0.1%; P = .51), and mean (SD) HEX did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (57.7% [5.8%] vs 57.2% [5.8%]; adjusted mean difference = 0.1%, 95% CI, −0.8% to 0.9%; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that ECL and morphometry 1 year after DMEK were not affected by cornea donor diabetes status. With comparable 1-year graft success with tissue from donors with and without diabetes demonstrated in this trial, these findings support the use of corneas from donors with diabetes for endothelial keratoplasty procedures. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
Donor Diabetes and 1-Year Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Success Rate
Price, Francis W. , Szczotka‐Flynn, Loretta , Bauza, Colleen , Reed, Zachariah W., Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark A. , Johnson, Paula, Keeler, Devon B., Pramanik, Sudeep, Soper, Mark, Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S. , Verdier, David D. , Kollman, Craig, Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lynn, A. G., Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy, Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James L. , Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, N. N., Nykaza, Jim, Venkateswaran, Nandini, Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark D., Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman W., Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, Mark, Nguyen, Jessica , Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael , Ernst, Lindsay, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann , Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Keeler, Devon, Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad I. , Pramanik, Sudeep , Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Wadleigh, Garth, Price, Marianne O. , Mian, Shahzad I. , Patel, Sanjay V. , Pramanik, Sudeep, Titus, Michael S., Beck, Roy W. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hardtke, Elainey, Hood, Christopher, Shapiro, Jeremy, Sáles, Christopher S. , Leavy, Lisa, Gordon, DJ, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Crosser, Vicki, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Evans, Que, Epstein, Rachel H. , Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes, Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen H. , Stanfield, Ryan, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Statz, Brianne, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, McCarthy, Chris, Reed, Zachariah, Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Barton, Glenn, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Partha Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1043

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4253 | PMID 41105094 Get It

Importance If the success of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not affected by whether the donor has diabetes, then the donor pool should expand. Objective To determine whether the 1-year DMEK success rate is affected by the presence of diabetes in the donor. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2025 at 28 clinical sites (46 surgeons), with donor corneas provided by 13 eye banks in the US. Included in the study were individuals undergoing low to moderate risk DMEK (95% for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy). Study data were analyzed from April to September 2025. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure (comparable with randomization) to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures Graft success at 1 year Results A total of 1097 individuals (1421 study eyes; median [IQR] age, 71 [66-76] years; 631 female [57.5%]) were included in the study. The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.3% (95% CI, 95.0%-97.5%) among 912 study eyes (64.2%) receiving tissue from donors without diabetes and 97.1% (95% CI, 95.5%-98.4%) among 509 study eyes (35.8%) receiving tissue from donors with diabetes (difference between groups = 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.2 to 2.6; P = .63). The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-98.9%) in the mild donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 173) and 97.3% (95% CI, 95.4%-98.8%) in the moderate to severe donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 336), using a diabetes severity rating scale based on medical history. The rates of primary donor failure, early failure related to surgical complications, and subsequent failure were as follows: 2.5% (23 of 912), 0.7% (6 of 912), and 0.3% (3 of 912), respectively, in recipients of tissue from a donor without diabetes, and 2.6% (13 of 509), 0.4% (2 of 509), and 0%, respectively, among recipients of tissue from a donor with diabetes. There were no failures due to graft rejection. Conclusions and Relevance The 1-year success rate in eyes undergoing DMEK with successfully prepared tissue was very high regardless of donor diabetes status. These results, supported by the separately reported finding that endothelial cell loss and cornea morphometry after 1 year were not affected by donor diabetes status, provide strong support for having no restrictions on the use of tissue from donors with diabetes for DMEK. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
Stranded in the emergency department: an analysis of boarding trends in older adults in the United States
Sifnugel, Natalia, Jeffery, Molly M. , Grogan, Elyssa F L , Sangal, Rohit B. , Carr, Brendan M. , Cruz, Daniel S. , Dresden, Scott M. , Gettel, Cameron J. , Iscoe, Mark , Skains, Rachel M. , Hwang, Ula , Jeffery, Molly Moore , Dresden, Scott , Venkatesh, Arjun , Hwang, Ula , Skains, Rachel M , Venkatesh, Arjun K.

Health Affairs Scholar | September 26, 2025 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/haschl/qxaf187 | PMID 41143086 Get It

Abstract Introduction The rapidly ageing population and multimorbidity are associated with increased emergency department (ED) visits by older adults. In the ED, older adults have higher risk of hospitalization, functional and cognitive decline, and mortality. Boarding, holding admitted patients in the ED awaiting a hospital bed, exacerbates these negative outcomes, which disproportionately affect older adults. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to investigate US boarding trends by age using clinical administrative data from 5 health systems and publicly available NHAMCS data from 2018 to 2024. Results Boarding ≥3 h in the ED has increased across diverse hospital types, with oldest adults (85+) facing the greatest risk (System 4: IRR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.15-1.20], System 5: IRR [95% CI] = 1.20 [1.17-1.23], System 3 [Community Hospital]: IRR [95% CI] = 1.25 [1.19-1.33]). These results were recapitulated at the national level in NHAMCS (IRR [95% CI] = 1.30 [1.05-1.61]). Discussion The trend of increased boarding has serious implications for patients, caregivers, and health systems. The 2025 CMS Age-Friendly Hospital Measure offers opportunities to improve processes and procedures to mitigate the negative effects of hospital boarding on older patients. We highlight opportunities to address this challenge, including ongoing quality improvement initiatives, bed prioritization algorithms, and alternate admission pathways.
The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Standardization Study ( GEARSS ): An Observational Study of Older Emergency Department Patients
Hwang, Ula , Sifnugel, Natalia, Cohen, Inessa , Han, Ling, Araujo, Katy, Bianco, Luann, Capelli, Sandra, Cruz, Daniel S. , Fishman, Ivy L., Gipson, Katrina, Hung, William W. , Kang, Raymond , Lockhart, Mechelle, Ohuabunwa, Ugochi , Ottilie‐Kovelman, Sierra, Partridge, Caitlin, Platts‐Mills, Timothy F. , Sandoval, Jacqueline , Taylor, Zachary , Tomasino, Debra F. , Vaughan, Camille P. , Tomasino, Debra F , Vaughan, Camille P , Hwang, Ula , Brandt, Cynthia , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Dresden, Scott M. , Hastings, Susan N. , Meeker, Daniella , Taylor, Zachary

Academic Emergency Medicine | July 12, 2025 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/acem.70101 | PMID 40650481 Get It

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.
Novel algorithms & blood‐based biomarkers: Dementia detection and care transitions for persons living with dementia in the emergency department
Saxena, Saket , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Floden, Darlene , Meldon, Stephen W. , Hwang, Ula , Carpenter, Christopher R , Meldon, Stephen , Hwang, Ula , Taylor, Richard Andrew

Alzheimer's & Dementia | May 20, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.70287 | PMID 40390207 Get It

AbstractPersons Living with Dementia (PLWD), diagnosed or undiagnosed, have high Emergency Department (ED) use. Identification of such patients poses significant challenges for emergency clinicians with considerable downstream implications on patients, care partners, and healthcare systems. With the advent of Geriatric Emergency Departments (GEDs) there is an opportunity to understand and improve care of PLWDs in EDs with effective allocation of resources and the development of novel techniques to better support detecting those at risk, communicating findings, and coordinating care for such patients. Advances have been made leveraging Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to risk stratify patients for dementia in the hope that those at high‐risk may benefit from further evaluation. The promise of multiple blood‐base biomarkers (BBM) as a future modality to improve detection of those at risk of dementias, will also have the potential to advance the delivery of care of PLWD and their care partners in EDs.Highlights EDs have an integral role in delivering care for Person Living with Dementia and their care partners. High acuity and fast paced ED environment and other barriers makes it difficult to identify Person Living with Dementia. EHR‐based risk stratification algorithms can identify patients at risk for Dementia in ED and outpatient settings. Use of Blood‐Based Biomarkers in the ED setting is novel and considerations of its use and implications need to be studied. EHR based risk stratification algorithm and Blood Based Biomarkers when used judiciously have the potential to overcome some of the known barriers to identify and improve care for Person Living with Dementia as they transition through EDs.
Engaging Community Reviewers: The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (2.0)—Advancing Dementia Care Network Approach
Gifford, Angela , McClellan, Chelsea, Daven, Morgan, Foster, Beverly, Gil, Heidi, Johnson, Jerry , Jobe, Deborah, Carpenter, Christopher R. , Hwang, Ula , Carpenter, Christopher R , Hwang, Ula , Shah, Manish N , McClellan, Chelsea, Ellenbogen, Michael I. , Foster, Beverly, Dresden, Scott M. , Gilmore‐Bykovskyi, Andrea L , Shah, Manish N.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | May 16, 2025 | Volume: 73 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2678-2684

10.1111/jgs.19515 | PMID 40377497 Get It

ABSTRACTA core tenant of the Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research Network 2.0—Advancing Dementia Care (GEAR 2.0‐ADC) is the inclusion of community members during all stages of clinical research. As such, we deliberately integrated and supported patient and public involvement in the evaluation and selection of GEAR 2.0‐ADC Pilot Research Grants by developing and adapting traditional grant application review structures, with input from community members, to create the GEAR 2.0‐ADC Community Review Committee approach. Community members, including persons living with dementia, effectively participated in all three rounds of research grant application review and selection, complementing the traditional scientific review process. The structure and flexibility of the GEAR 2.0‐ADC Community Review Committee approach serve as a model for patient and public grant application review involvement with strong potential for applications across grant reviews in other medical specialties.
The PRO ‐ AGE Tool and Its Association With Post Discharge Outcomes in Older Adults Admitted From the Emergency Department
Cohen, Inessa , Morinaga, Christian Valle , Han, Ling, Araujo, Katy, Avelino‐Silva, Thiago Junqueira , Bianco, Luann, Capelli, Sandra, Cruz, Daniel S. , Fishman, Ivy L., Gipson, Katrina, Gray, Elizabeth , Hung, William W. , Kang, Raymond , Lockhart, Mechelle, Ohuabunwa, Ugochi , Ottilie‐Kovelman, Sierra, Platts‐Mills, Timothy F. , Sandoval, Jacqueline , Sifnugel, Natalia, Taylor, Zachary , Tomasino, Debra F. , Vaughan, Camille P. , Hwang, Ula , Carpenter, Christopher R , Cruz, Daniel S , Ohuabunwa, Ugochi , Sandoval, Jacqueline , Vaughan, Camille P , Aliberti, Márlon J R , Hwang, Ula , Avelino-Silva, Thiago Junqueira , Curiati, Pedro Kallas , Gandhi, Tanish , Brandt, Cynthia , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Dresden, Scott M. , Hastings, Susan N. , Meeker, Daniella , Taylor, Zachary

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | January 22, 2025 | Volume: 73 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1419-1428

10.1111/jgs.19374 | PMID 39843218 Get It

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.