Andreas W Schoenenberger1, Christoph Bieri2, Onur Özgüler3, André Moser4, Monika Haberkern3, Heinz Zimmermann3, Andreas E Stuck2, Aristomenis Exadaktylos3. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: Andreas.Schoenenberger@insel.ch. 2. Division of Geriatrics, Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Division of Geriatrics, Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSES: Geriatric problems frequently go undetected in older patients in emergency departments (EDs), thus increasing their risk of adverse outcomes. We evaluated a novel emergency geriatric screening (EGS) tool designed to detect geriatric problems. BASIC PROCEDURES: The EGS tool consisted of short validated instruments used to screen 4 domains (cognition, falls, mobility, and activities of daily living). Emergency geriatric screening was introduced for ED patients 75 years or older throughout a 4-month period. We analyzed the prevalence of abnormal EGS and whether EGS increased the number of EGS-related diagnoses in the ED during the screening, as compared with a preceding control period. MAIN FINDINGS: Emergency geriatric screening was performed on 338 (42.5%) of 795 patients presenting during screening. Emergency geriatric screening was unfeasible in 175 patients (22.0%) because of life-threatening conditions and was not performed in 282 (35.5%) for logistical reasons. Emergency geriatric screening took less than 5 minutes to perform in most (85.8%) cases. Among screened patients, 285 (84.3%) had at least 1 abnormal EGS finding. In 270 of these patients, at least 1 abnormal EGS finding did not result in a diagnosis in the ED and was reported for further workup to subsequent care. During screening, 142 patients (42.0%) had at least 1 diagnosis listed within the 4 EGS domains, significantly more than the 29.3% in the control period (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.29; P<.001). Emergency geriatric screening predicted nursing home admission after the in-hospital stay (odds ratio for ≥3 vs <3 abnormal domains 12.13; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-52.72; P=.001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: The novel EGS is feasible, identifies previously undetected geriatric problems, and predicts determinants of subsequent care.
PURPOSES: Geriatric problems frequently go undetected in older patients in emergency departments (EDs), thus increasing their risk of adverse outcomes. We evaluated a novel emergency geriatric screening (EGS) tool designed to detect geriatric problems. BASIC PROCEDURES: The EGS tool consisted of short validated instruments used to screen 4 domains (cognition, falls, mobility, and activities of daily living). Emergency geriatric screening was introduced for ED patients 75 years or older throughout a 4-month period. We analyzed the prevalence of abnormal EGS and whether EGS increased the number of EGS-related diagnoses in the ED during the screening, as compared with a preceding control period. MAIN FINDINGS: Emergency geriatric screening was performed on 338 (42.5%) of 795 patients presenting during screening. Emergency geriatric screening was unfeasible in 175 patients (22.0%) because of life-threatening conditions and was not performed in 282 (35.5%) for logistical reasons. Emergency geriatric screening took less than 5 minutes to perform in most (85.8%) cases. Among screened patients, 285 (84.3%) had at least 1 abnormal EGS finding. In 270 of these patients, at least 1 abnormal EGS finding did not result in a diagnosis in the ED and was reported for further workup to subsequent care. During screening, 142 patients (42.0%) had at least 1 diagnosis listed within the 4 EGS domains, significantly more than the 29.3% in the control period (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.29; P<.001). Emergency geriatric screening predicted nursing home admission after the in-hospital stay (odds ratio for ≥3 vs <3 abnormal domains 12.13; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-52.72; P=.001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: The novel EGS is feasible, identifies previously undetected geriatric problems, and predicts determinants of subsequent care.
Authors: R M J Warnier; E van Rossum; E van Velthuijsen; W J Mulder; J M G A Schols; G I J M Kempen Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Nada Hammouda; Christopher R Carpenter; William W Hung; Adriane Lesser; Sylviah Nyamu; Shan Liu; Cameron J Gettel; Aaron Malsch; Edward M Castillo; Savannah Forrester; Kimberly Souffront; Samuel Vargas; Elizabeth M Goldberg Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Rónán O'Caoimh; Maria Costello; Cliona Small; Lynn Spooner; Antoinette Flannery; Liam O'Reilly; Laura Heffernan; Edel Mannion; Anna Maughan; Alma Joyce; D William Molloy; John O'Donnell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Simon P Mooijaart; Shanti Bolt; Jacinta A Lucke; Jelle de Gelder; Anja M Booijen; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Bas de Groot Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Bas de Groot; Jacinta A Lucke; Jelle de Gelder; Anja M Booijen; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 1.281