Maura Kennedy1, Adriane Lesser2, Juhi Israni2, Shan W Liu3, Ilianna Santangelo4, Nicole Tidwell5, Lauren T Southerland6, Christopher R Carpenter7, Kevin Biese8, Surriya Ahmad9, Ula Hwang10. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: mkennedy8@partners.org. 2. West Health Institute, La Jolla, CA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. American College of Emergency Physicians, Irving, TX. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine and Emergency Care Research Core, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 8. West Health Institute, La Jolla, CA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, SUNY Downstate, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Geriatrics Research, Education and Clinical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to describe the reach and adoption of Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program and care processes instituted at accredited geriatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We analyzed a cross-section of a cohort of US EDs that received GEDA from May 2018 to March 2021. We obtained data from the American College of Emergency Physicians and publicly available sources. Data included GEDA level, geographic location, urban/rural designation, and care processes instituted. Frequencies and proportions and median and interquartile ranges were used to summarize categorical and continuous data, respectively. RESULTS: Over the study period, 225 US geriatric ED accreditations were issued and included in our analysis-14 Level 1, 21 Level 2, and 190 Level 3 geriatric EDs; 5 geriatric EDs reapplied and received higher-level accreditation after initial accreditation at a lower level. Only 9 geriatric EDs were in rural regions. There was significant heterogeneity in protocols enacted at geriatric EDs; minimizing urinary catheter use and fall prevention were the most common. CONCLUSION: There has been rapid growth in geriatric EDs, driven by Level 3 accreditation. Most geriatric EDs are in urban areas, indicating the potential need for expansion beyond these areas. Future research evaluating the impact of GEDA on health care utilization and patient-oriented outcomes is needed.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to describe the reach and adoption of Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program and care processes instituted at accredited geriatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We analyzed a cross-section of a cohort of US EDs that received GEDA from May 2018 to March 2021. We obtained data from the American College of Emergency Physicians and publicly available sources. Data included GEDA level, geographic location, urban/rural designation, and care processes instituted. Frequencies and proportions and median and interquartile ranges were used to summarize categorical and continuous data, respectively. RESULTS: Over the study period, 225 US geriatric ED accreditations were issued and included in our analysis-14 Level 1, 21 Level 2, and 190 Level 3 geriatric EDs; 5 geriatric EDs reapplied and received higher-level accreditation after initial accreditation at a lower level. Only 9 geriatric EDs were in rural regions. There was significant heterogeneity in protocols enacted at geriatric EDs; minimizing urinary catheter use and fall prevention were the most common. CONCLUSION: There has been rapid growth in geriatric EDs, driven by Level 3 accreditation. Most geriatric EDs are in urban areas, indicating the potential need for expansion beyond these areas. Future research evaluating the impact of GEDA on health care utilization and patient-oriented outcomes is needed.
Authors: Lauren T Southerland; Katherine M Hunold; Jenifer Van Fossen; Jeffrey M Caterino; Peg Gulker; Julie A Stephens; Jason J Bischof; Erin Farrell; Christopher R Carpenter; Lorraine C Mion Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sangil Lee; Hao Chen; Seikei Hibino; Daniel Miller; Heather Healy; Jacques S Lee; Glenn Arendts; Jin Ho Han; Maura Kennedy; Christopher R Carpenter Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 7.538