Emergency Department presentation of frail older people and interventions for management: Geriatric Emergency Department Intervention

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency. Search strategy We searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane’s Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up. Data collection and analysis Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated. Results Twenty two trials evaluating 10 315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome “living at home,” patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P=0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P<0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P<0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups “wards” and “teams” in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P=0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P=0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group. Conclusions Comprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients’ likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.

The current approach to patient safety, labelled Safety I, is predicated on a 'find and fix' model. It identifies things going wrong, after the event, and aims to stamp them out, in order to ensure that the number of errors is as low as possible. Healthcare is much more complex than such a linear model suggests. We need to switch the focus to what we have come to call Safety II: a concerted effort to enable things to go right more often. The key is to appreciate that healthcare is resilient to a large extent, and everyday performance succeeds much more often than it fails. Clinicians constantly adjust what they do to match the conditions. Facilitating work flexibility, and actively trying to increase the capacity of clinicians to deliver more care more effectively, is key to this new paradigm. At its heart, proactive safety management focuses on how everyday performance usually succeeds rather than on why it occasionally fails, and actively strives to improve the former rather than simply preventing the latter.

We sought to determine the prevalence of mental status impairment in elderly emergency department patients and to assess documentation of and referrals by emergency physicians for mental status impairment after discharge from the ED. We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of 297 patients 70 years or older presenting to an urban teaching hospital ED over a 12-month period. Patients were screened with the Orientation-Memory-Concentration examination for cognitive impairment and the Confusion Assessment Method for delirium. Documentation, dispositions, and referrals were abstracted from chart review. Two hundred ninety-seven of the 337 eligible patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight of the 297 (26%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 21% to 31%) patients had mental status impairment; 30 (10%; 95% CI 7% to 14%) had delirium; 48 (16%; 95% CI 12% to 20%) had cognitive impairment without delirium; 17 (6%; 95% CI 3% to 9%) screened positive on both examinations. Only 22 (28%; 95% CI 19% to 40%) of the 78 patients had any documentation of mental status impairment by the emergency physician. Specific mention of delirium, cognitive impairment, or an acceptable synonym was noted in 13 (17%; 95% CI 9% to 27%). Of 34 (44%; 95% CI 32% to 55%) patients with mental status impairment discharged home, only 6 (18%; 95% CI 7% to 35%) had plans documented by the emergency physician to address impairment. Eleven (37%; 95% CI 20% to 56%) of the 30 patients with delirium were discharged home. Sixteen (70%; 95% CI 47% to 87%) of the 23 patients with cognitive impairment who were discharged home had no prior history of dementia; these patients were less likely to have specialized assistance with care (13%; 95% CI 4% to 27%) than those with known dementia (58%; 95% CI 28% to 85%). Impaired mental status is common among older ED patients. Lack of documentation, admission, or referral by emergency physicians suggests a lack of recognition of this important problem.