Carpenter, Christopher R

ABSTRACT Background Dementia often goes undetected in hospital settings, where cognitive assessments are challenging due to illness severity and delirium. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the accuracy of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), based solely on knowledgeable informant reports, for detecting preexisting dementia and cognitive impairment in hospitalized patients compared to a gold‐standard diagnosis, (2) and compare its performance to the 16‐item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE‐16). Methods This cross‐sectional study assessed consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 admitted to inpatient units from five hospitals in Brazil. The informant‐based CDR was administered to knowledgeable informants within 48 h of admission, capturing patients' cognitive status 3 months before hospitalization to avoid the influence of acute cognitive impairments. Blinded experts provided a gold standard clinical diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) based on a 90‐min comprehensive assessment, including a standardized neuropsychology battery. Areas under the curve (AUC) examined diagnostic accuracy. Results Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND . Compared to the gold standard, the informant‐based CDR showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for detecting dementia ( AUC = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [ CI ] = 0.86–0.98) and cognitive impairment ( AUC = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88–0.98), with a cutoff of ≥ 1 showing 98% specificity for dementia and a cutoff of ≥ 0.5 showing 98% sensitivity for cognitive impairment. Compared to the IQCODE ‐16, the informant‐based CDR had similar performance in detecting dementia and a nonsignificant slight advantage in identifying cognitive impairment ( AUC = 0.93 vs. 0.84, p = 0.069), reducing unrecognized cognitive impairment based on medical record documentation from 70% to 2%. Conclusions Informant‐based CDR is a valid and efficient tool for detecting dementia and cognitive impairment in hospitalized older adults, supporting early diagnosis and guiding multidisciplinary interventions in acute care. Its use in routine hospitals may help clinicians reduce undetected cognitive impairment, enhance decision making, and improve patient care.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network indexes over 600 reporting guidelines designed to improve the reproducibility of manuscripts across medical fields and study designs. Although several such reporting guidelines touch on adverse events that may occur in the context of a study, there is a large body of research whose primary focus is on adverse events, near-misses and medical errors that do not currently have a dedicated reporting guideline to help set reporting standards and facilitate comparisons across studies. As part of the process prescribed by EQUATOR for developing such a reporting guideline, we performed a needs assessment, evaluating whether existing standards address key features of a proposed reporting guideline in development, entitled Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error (SESAME). We evaluated 12 EQUATOR reporting guidelines for the presence of eight key features of SESAME. Five of the 12 failed to include any of these key features. None of the remaining seven incorporated more than four of the eight SESAME key components, confirming the need for a dedicated reporting guideline for studies of adverse events and medical errors.

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 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.

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.

Abstract To address acute vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits among individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD), we conducted the clinical study, ALIGN (An Individualized Pain Plan with Patient and Provider Access for Emergency Department care of SCD), across 8 sites. We hypothesized an improvement of 0.5 standard deviations in perceived quality of ED pain treatment of a VOE after implementing individualized pain plans (IPPs) accessible to both patients and providers. Patients with SCD were aged 18 to 45 years, owned a cell phone, and had an ED VOE visit within 90 days prior. Patients completed the perceived quality of care surveys at baseline and within 96 hours after an ED VOE visit. Providers completed surveys regarding comfort managing VOEs at baseline and after managing an enrolled patient. Most of the 153 patients were African American (95.4%), female (64.7%), and had Hb SS/Sβ0 genotype (71.9%). The perceived quality of ED pain treatment was high at both baseline and after implementation of IPPs; our primary outcome hypothesis was not met, because no statistically significant change in the patient-perceived quality of ED treatment occurred. A total of 135 providers completed baseline and follow-up surveys. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being extremely comfortable managing VOEs, 60.5% reported a score ≥6 after IPP implementation vs 57.8% at baseline. Almost all (97.6%) ordered the recommended medication, and 94.7% intended to use IPPs. In this implementation protocol, all sites successfully implemented IPPs. Patients and ED providers both endorsed the use of IPPs. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as # NCT04584528.

Abstract Introduction Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test–treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening. Methods We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta‐analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds. Results Full‐text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta‐analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7–20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR−] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09–0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta‐analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test‐4 (AMT‐4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4–7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR− (0.22, 95% CI 0.05–1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM‐ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%. Conclusions The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED‐based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM‐ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single‐center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single‐center study.