Nataly R Espinoza Suarez1, Laura E Walker1, Molly M Jeffery2, Jessica A Stanich1, Ronna L Campbell1, Christine M Lohse3, Paul Y Takahashi4, Fernanda Bellolio5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department Health Science Research, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department Health Science Research, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: bellolio.fernanda@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85). CONCLUSION: The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.
OBJECTIVES: The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85). CONCLUSION: The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Luke O Hansen; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Tina Budnitz; Eric Howell; Lakshmi Halasyamani; Greg Maynard; Arpana Vidyarthi; Eric A Coleman; Mark V Williams Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Marilyn Bromley; Jeffrey M Caterino; Audrey Chun; Lowell W Gerson; Jason Greenspan; Ula Hwang; David P John; William L Lyons; Timothy F Platts-Mills; Betty Mortensen; Luna Ragsdale; Mark Rosenberg; Scott Wilber Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Dorothy A Brooten; Roberta L Campbell; Greg Maislin; Kathleen M McCauley; J Sanford Schwartz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Bruce E Koehler; Kathleen M Richter; Liz Youngblood; Brian A Cohen; Irving D Prengler; Dunlei Cheng; Andrew L Masica Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Alan J Forster; Heather D Clark; Alex Menard; Natalie Dupuis; Robert Chernish; Natasha Chandok; Asmat Khan; Carl van Walraven Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-02-03 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Mauro Di Bari; Daniela Balzi; Anna T Roberts; Alessandro Barchielli; Stefano Fumagalli; Andrea Ungar; Stefania Bandinelli; Walter De Alfieri; Luciano Gabbani; Niccolò Marchionni Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 6.053