Carpenter, Christopher R.

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.

Abstract The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐4) is on the topic of the emergency department (ED) management of nonopioid use disorders and focuses on alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team, composed of emergency physicians and experts in addiction medicine and patients with lived experience, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding six priority questions for adult ED patients with AWS, AUD, and CHS. The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team reached the following recommendations: (1) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with moderate to severe AWS who are being admitted to hospital, we suggest using phenobarbital in addition to benzodiazepines compared to using benzodiazepines alone [ low to very low certainty of evidence ]; (2) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD who desire alcohol cessation, we suggest a prescription for one anticraving medication [ very low certainty of evidence ]; (2a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest naltrexone (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking [ low certainty of evidence ]; (2b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD and contraindications to naltrexone, we suggest acamprosate (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking and/or to reduce heavy drinking [ low certainty of evidence ]; (2c) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest gabapentin (compared to no prescription) for the management of AUD to reduce heavy drinking days and improve alcohol withdrawal symptoms [ very low certainty of evidence ]; (3a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS we suggest the use of haloperidol or droperidol (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [ very low certainty of evidence ]; and (3b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS, we also suggest offering the use of topical capsaicin (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [ very low certainty of evidence ].

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to explore and externally validate the Carpenter instrument's efficacy in predicting postdischarge fall risk among older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) for reasons other than falls or related injuries.MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted on 779 patients aged ≥ 65 years from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, who were monitored for up to 6 months post‐ED hospitalization. The Carpenter instrument, which evaluates the four risk factors nonhealing foot sores, self‐reported depression, inability to self‐clip toenails, and prior falls, was utilized to assess fall risk. Follow‐up by telephone occurred at 30, 90, and 180 days to identify falls and mortality. Fine–Gray models estimated the predictive power of Carpenter instrument for future falls, considering death as a competing event and sociodemographic factors, frail status, and clinical measures as confounders.ResultsAmong 779 patients, 68 (9%) experienced a fall within 180 days post‐ED admission, and 88 (11%) died. The majority were male (54%), with a mean age of 79 years. Upon utilizing the Carpenter score, those with a higher fall risk (≥2 points) displayed more comorbidities, greater frailty, and increased clinical severity at baseline. Regression analyses showed that every additional point on the Carpenter score increased the hazard of falls by 73%. Two primary contributors to its predictive potential were identified: a history of falls in the preceding year and an inability to self‐clip toenails. However, the instrument's discriminative accuracy was suboptimal, with an area under the curve of 0.62.ConclusionsWhile the Carpenter instrument associated with a higher 6‐month postadmission fall risk among older adults post‐ED visit, its accuracy for individual patient decision making was limited. Given the significant impact of falls on health outcomes and health care costs, refining risk assessment tools remains essential. Future research should focus on enhancing these assessments and devising targeted proactive strategies.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care.MethodsWith the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science‐Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post–emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full‐text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk‐of‐bias (RoB) assessments.ResultsOur search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1–3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4–6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality.ConclusionsPROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Abstract Reducing adverse drug events among older adults in heterogeneous and often chaotic emergency department (ED) settings requires a multidisciplinary approach. Recent research evaluates the impact of multicomponent protocols designed to reduce ED physician prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), including transdisciplinary training and leveraging electronic health records to provide real‐time alternative safer pharmaceuticals while providing personalized feedback to prescribers. Most new research is not randomized trial data. Although this current research does not consistently demonstrate a reduction in the prescribing of PIMs, these studies provide a foundation for emergency medicine healthcare teams, geriatricians, and pharmacists to collaborate with health informatics to continue advancing the frontiers of safer medication prescribing during episodes of acute care.

Abstract This third Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐3) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic adult patients with acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department (ED). A multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding five questions for adult ED patients with acute dizziness of less than 2 weeks' duration. The intended population is adults presenting to the ED with acute dizziness or vertigo. The panel derived 15 evidence‐based recommendations based on the timing and triggers of the dizziness but recognizes that alternative diagnostic approaches exist, such as the STANDING protocol and nystagmus examination in combination with gait unsteadiness or the presence of vascular risk factors. As an overarching recommendation, (1) emergency clinicians should receive training in bedside physical examination techniques for patients with the acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; HINTS) and the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV; Dix–Hallpike test and Epley maneuver). To help distinguish central from peripheral causes in patients with the AVS, we recommend: (2) use HINTS (for clinicians trained in its use) in patients with nystagmus, (3) use finger rub to further aid in excluding stroke in patients with nystagmus, (4) use severity of gait unsteadiness in patients without nystagmus, (5) do not use brain computed tomography (CT), (6) do not use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a first‐line test if a clinician trained in HINTS is available, and (7) use MRI as a confirmatory test in patients with central or equivocal HINTS examinations. In patients with the spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome: (8) search for symptoms or signs of cerebral ischemia, (9) do not use CT, and (10) use CT angiography or MRI angiography if there is concern for transient ischemic attack. In patients with the triggered (positional) episodic vestibular syndrome, (11) use the Dix–Hallpike test to diagnose posterior canal BPPV (pc‐BPPV), (12) do not use CT, and (13) do not use MRI routinely, unless atypical clinical features are present. In patients diagnosed with vestibular neuritis, (14) consider short‐term steroids as a treatment option. In patients diagnosed with pc‐BPPV, (15) treat with the Epley maneuver. It is clear that as of 2023, when applied in routine practice by emergency clinicians without special training, HINTS testing is inaccurate, partly due to use in the wrong patients and partly due to issues with its interpretation. Most emergency physicians have not received training in use of HINTS. As such, it is not standard of care, either in the legal sense of that term (“what the average physician would do in similar circumstances”) or in the common parlance sense (“the standard action typically used by physicians in routine practice”).