Lee, Sangil

ABSTRACT Objectives This portion of the Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines 2.0 focuses on delirium in the emergency department (ED). Methods A multidisciplinary group applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and develop recommendations related to older ED patients with possible delirium. Results The GED Guidelines 2.0 Delirium Work Group derived six evidence‐based recommendations for risk stratification, diagnosis, and brain imaging. To reduce universal screening, the Delirium Risk Score may be used to identify older adults at low risk for delirium, though the evidence certainty is very low. In adults over 65 admitted to ED observation units, Zucchelli's risk assessment tool (threshold ≥ 4) may stratify delirium risk, also with very low certainty. For adults over 75, the REDEEM Score may be used to identify low‐ or high‐risk individuals, again with very low certainty. For diagnosis, 4AT, bCAM, CAM‐ICU, mCAM, AMT‐4, or RASS may be used to rule delirium in or out, based on very low certainty. The Delirium Triage Screen (DTS) may be used to rule out, but not to rule in, delirium, also with very low certainty. For diagnostic imaging, there is very low certainty of evidence to recommend for or against obtaining a head CT as part of the evaluation for older ED patients with delirium. All recommendations are conditional, reflecting very low certainty of evidence due to the lack of high‐quality ED‐based studies and comparative effectiveness research. Conclusion Rigorous ED‐based research is needed to strengthen evidence and guide delirium care for older adults in geriatric emergency medicine.

Background Delirium is a state of acute brain failure causing confusion, reduced focus, and changes in alertness. It is common in older patients, occurring in 6-38% of older emergency department (ED) patients. Evidence suggests that systematic screening improves detection rates and early detection, management and reporting are critical. However, examples of operationalizing this in clinical non-research care are scarce. Objective To describe and disseminate examples of best practices for delirium screening, management, and monitoring within the ED. Methods A group of emergency physicians interested in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) and evidence-based medicine gathered monthly to discuss ways of implementing delirium care. Members were asked to submit any electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions for delirium in current use at their institutions. One group member categorized the EHR tools by their use for screening, prevention, management, and monitoring of delirium. As a group, categorizations were reviewed and agreed upon and similarities, differences and themes were identified. Results Current EHR interventions from 5 EDs were included. We found that: 1) Screening for delirium in EDs is challenging due to the nature of the environment and the variety of tools available. 2) Prevention tools included order sets. 3) Management was accomplished with best practice alerts and order sets to help screen, prevent, address underlying causes, and manage agitation. Delirium prevention order sets emphasize optimizing patient mobility, comfort, and communication. Assessment order sets include routine labs and consultations, while management order sets for agitation provide safe medication options considering older adults’ unique physiology. 4) Utilizing dashboards for compliance monitoring offers real-time feedback, and provides an overview of adherence to clinical guidelines, regulatory standards, and patient safety protocols. Conclusion These real-world examples can be used in EDs implementing delirium programs. Further studies on how EHR interventions impact screening, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium in the ED are needed.

Abstract Aims Syncope remains a diagnostic challenge despite advancements in testing and treatment. Cardiac syncope is an independent predictor of mortality and can be difficult to distinguish from other causes of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC). This paper explores whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the evaluation and management of patients with syncope. Methods and results We conducted a literature review and incorporated the opinions of experts in the fields of syncope and AI. The cause of TLOC is often unclear, hospitalization criteria are ambiguous, diagnostic tests are frequently non-informative, and assessments are costly. Patients are left with unanswered questions and limited guidance. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to optimize syncope evaluation by processing large data sets, detecting imperceptible patterns, and assisting clinicians. However, AI has limitations, including errors, lack of human empathy, and uncertain clinical utility. Liability issues further complicate its integration. We present three viewpoints: (i) AI is crucial for advancing syncope management; (ii) AI can enhance the patient experience; and (iii) AI in syncope care is inevitable. Conclusion Artificial intelligence may improve syncope diagnosis and management, particularly through machine learning–based test interpretation and wearable device data. However, it has yet to surpass human clinical judgment in complex decision-making. Current challenges include gaps in understanding syncope mechanisms, AI interpretability, generalizability, and clinical integration. Standardized diagnostic approaches, real-world validation, and curated data sets are essential for progress. Artificial intelligence may enhance efficiency and communication but raises concerns regarding confidentiality, bias, inequities, and legal implications.

Abstract Background The increasing prevalence of dementia poses significant challenges for emergency department (ED) care, as persons living with dementia (PLWD) more frequently experience adverse outcomes such as delirium, prolonged stays, and higher mortality rates. Despite advancements in care strategies, a critical gap remains in understanding how ED interventions impact outcomes in this vulnerable population. This systematic review aims to identify evidence‐based ED care interventions tailored to PLWD to improve outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Scopus (Elsevier), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global through September 2024. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024586555). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and quality improvement initiatives focused on ED interventions for PLWD. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Outcomes included patient satisfaction, ED revisits, functional decline, and mortality. Results From 3305 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included nonpharmacologic therapies (e.g., music and light therapy), specialized geriatric ED units, and assessment tools, such as for pain. Tailored interventions including geriatric emergency units and community paramedic care transitions were effective in reducing 30‐day ED revisits and hospitalizations. However, heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes precluded meta‐analysis. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion This review underscores the urgent need for standardized and evidence‐based interventions in ED settings for PLWD. Approaches including multidisciplinary care models and nonpharmacologic therapies demonstrated potential for improving outcomes. Future research should prioritize consistent outcome measures, interdisciplinary collaboration, and person‐centered care strategies to enhance the quality and equity of ED services for PLWD.

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.

AimAngioedema is a nonpitting edema that can lead to death secondary to airway obstruction. Previously, a staging system based on localization of the angioedema was proposed for risk stratification of likelihood of need for admission or airway intervention. This study aims to evaluate a staging system based on angioedema localization as a method of predicting need for admission or airway intervention.MethodsThis was a retrospective chart review of angioedema cases that presented to an academic emergency department (ED) from August 1, 2006, to January 31, 2018. Data were collected on location of swelling, treatment setting, and medical and procedural interventions. Cases were categorized by modified Ishoo criteria, defined as follows: 1, lips, face, periorbital, extremities, total body/diffuse swelling; 2, soft palate, posterior pharynx; 3, tongue; 4, larynx. Predictive probability of disposition by stage was then compared.ResultsA total of 320 patients were included in this study (median age, 44 years; 54.4% female). Stage 4 was more likely to require intensive care unit care without (probability 17%) and with (67%) airway intervention compared with stage 1 without (2.5%) and with (0.1%) airway intervention. Conversely, stage 1 was more likely to be treated in ED and discharged (85%) compared with stage 4 (0%). Stage 4 was also more likely to require airway intervention (67%) compared with other stages (1, 0.1%; 2, 8.6%; 3, 16%).ConclusionHigher‐stage patients were more likely to require higher levels of care and airway intervention. Thus, the staging system appears to be a valid method of predicting risk among ED angioedema patients.

Purpose of review Biphasic anaphylaxis is a well documented complication of anaphylaxis, but it has been inconsistently defined in the literature. Analysis of contemporary studies of biphasic anaphylaxis based on modern definitions is needed. Recent findings The rate of biphasic reactions in contemporary literature ranges from 0.4 to 14.7% depending on the study population. Observational studies have reported risk factors associated with the development of biphasic reactions; however, findings have been inconsistent and of questionable generalizability. Although life-threatening biphasic reactions are rare, up to 50% of biphasic reactions will require treatment with epinephrine. Early epinephrine administration may have a role in prevention of biphasic reactions, but the role of steroids needs further investigation. The optimal duration of observation is yet to be determined. Summary Given the relative rarity of life-threatening biphasic anaphylaxis and the new context of the NIAID/FAAN standardized definition, further research regarding biphasic anaphylaxis is needed to better elucidate the care model for anaphylaxis patients with a focus on: prevention of biphasic reactions; identification of patients at increased risk of a biphasic reaction; determination of appropriate observation strategies for anaphylaxis patients; and patient education and preparation for management of potential biphasic reactions.

Introduction. Children with severe food allergies may spend many hours in the preschool setting. Little is known about anaphylaxis recognition and management preparedness among preschool staff. The objective of this study was to assess anaphylaxis preparedness among preschool staff. Methods. Anonymous questionnaires were administered before and after a 40-minute educational seminar on anaphylaxis recognition and management. Results. In total, 181 individuals participated in the preintervention survey and 171 participated in the postintervention survey. The comfort level with recognizing anaphylaxis and administering an epinephrine autoinjector significantly increased after the intervention (P<.001 for both). Of the 5 steps needed to administer an epinephrine autoinjector, staff named a mean (SD) of 3 (1.3) steps in the correct order compared with 4.2 (1.1) steps after the educational intervention (P<.001). Conclusion. This study shows that a brief education intervention can significantly increase caregiver comfort regarding identifying anaphylaxis and administering an epinephrine autoinjector.