Rose Galvin1,2, Yannick Gilleit1,3, Emma Wallace1, Gráinne Cousins1,4, Manon Bolmer1,3, Timothy Rainer5,6, Susan M Smith1, Tom Fahey1. 1. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 2. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Department of Clinical Therapies, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland. 3. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. School of Pharmacy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 5. Accident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sha Tin, Hong Kong. 6. Institute of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
Background: older adults are frequent users of emergency services and demonstrate high rates of adverse outcomes following emergency care. Objective: to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) screening tool, to determine its predictive value in identifying adults ≥65 years at risk of functional decline, unplanned emergency department (ED) readmission, emergency hospitalisation or death within 180 days after index ED visit/hospitalisation. Methods: a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBSCO and the Cochrane Library to identify validation and impact analysis studies of the ISAR tool. A pre-specified ISAR score of ≥2 (maximum score 6 points) was used to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. A bivariate random effects model generated pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Statistical heterogeneity was explored and methodological quality was assessed using validated criteria. Results: thirty-two validation studies (n = 12,939) are included. At ≥2, the pooled sensitivity of the ISAR for predicting ED return, emergency hospitalisation and mortality at 6 months is 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.87), 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.88) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-0.94), respectively, with a pooled specificity of 0.31 (95% CI 0.24-0.38), 0.32 (95% CI 0.24-0.41) and 0.35 (95% CI 0.26-0.44). Similar values are demonstrated at 30 and 90 days. Three heterogeneous impact analysis studies examined the clinical implementation of the ISAR and reported mixed findings across patient and process outcomes. Conclusion: the ISAR has modest predictive accuracy and may serve as a decision-making adjunct when determining which older adults can be safely discharged.
Background: older adults are frequent users of emergency services and demonstrate high rates of adverse outcomes following emergency care. Objective: to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) screening tool, to determine its predictive value in identifying adults ≥65 years at risk of functional decline, unplanned emergency department (ED) readmission, emergency hospitalisation or death within 180 days after index ED visit/hospitalisation. Methods: a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBSCO and the Cochrane Library to identify validation and impact analysis studies of the ISAR tool. A pre-specified ISAR score of ≥2 (maximum score 6 points) was used to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. A bivariate random effects model generated pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Statistical heterogeneity was explored and methodological quality was assessed using validated criteria. Results: thirty-two validation studies (n = 12,939) are included. At ≥2, the pooled sensitivity of the ISAR for predicting ED return, emergency hospitalisation and mortality at 6 months is 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.87), 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.88) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-0.94), respectively, with a pooled specificity of 0.31 (95% CI 0.24-0.38), 0.32 (95% CI 0.24-0.41) and 0.35 (95% CI 0.26-0.44). Similar values are demonstrated at 30 and 90 days. Three heterogeneous impact analysis studies examined the clinical implementation of the ISAR and reported mixed findings across patient and process outcomes. Conclusion: the ISAR has modest predictive accuracy and may serve as a decision-making adjunct when determining which older adults can be safely discharged.
Authors: Jean Yves Le Reste; Patrice Nabbe; Alice Billot Grasset; Bernard Le Floch; Pauline Grall; Jeremy Derriennic; Michele Odorico; Sophie Lalande; Delphine le Goff; Marie Barais; Benoit Chiron; Heidrun Lingner; Morgane Guillou; Pierre Barraine Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Magnolia Cardona; Michael O'Sullivan; Ebony T Lewis; Robin M Turner; Frances Garden; Hatem Alkhouri; Stephen Asha; John Mackenzie; Margaret Perkins; Sam Suri; Anna Holdgate; Luis Winoto; David C W Chang; Blanca Gallego-Luxan; Sally McCarthy; Ken Hillman; Dorothy Breen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Anne-Carina Scharf; Janine Gronewold; Christian Dahlmann; Jeanina Schlitzer; Andreas Kribben; Guido Gerken; Tienush Rassaf; Christoph Kleinschnitz; Richard Dodel; Helmut Frohnhofen; Dirk M Hermann Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.921
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: Cameron J Gettel; Corrine I Voils; Alycia A Bristol; Lynne D Richardson; Teresita M Hogan; Abraham A Brody; Micaela N Gladney; Joe Suyama; Luna C Ragsdale; Christine L Binkley; Carmen L Morano; Justine Seidenfeld; Nada Hammouda; Kelly J Ko; Ula Hwang; Susan N Hastings Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Anne-Carina Scharf; Janine Gronewold; Christian Dahlmann; Jeanina Schlitzer; Andreas Kribben; Guido Gerken; Helmut Frohnhofen; Richard Dodel; Dirk M Hermann Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 3.921