Search

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's 4-Ms framework of care for older adults recommends a multidisciplinary assessment of a patient's Medications, Mentation, Mobility, and What Matters Most. Electronic health record (EHR) systems were developed prior to this emphasis on the 4-Ms. We sought to understand how healthcare providers across the healthcare system perceive their EHRs and to identify any current best practices and ideas for improvement regarding integration of the 4-Ms.Anonymous survey of healthcare providers who care for older adults. The survey aimed to evaluate efficiency, error tolerance, and satisfaction (usefulness and likeability). The survey was distributed through organizational list serves that focus on the care of older adults and through social media.Sixty-six respondents from all geographic segments of the U.S. (n = 62) and non-U.S. practices (n = 4) responded. Most (82%) were physicians. Respondents used a range of EHRs and 82% had5 years of experience with their current EHR. Over half of respondents agreed that their EHR had easy to find contact information (56%) and advance directives. Finding a patient's prior cognitive status (26% agreement), goals of care (24%), functional status (14%), and multidisciplinary geriatric assessments (27%) was more difficult. Only 3% were satisfied with how their EHR handles geriatric syndromes. In free text responses, respondents (79%) described three areas that the EHR assists in the care of older adults: screening tied to actions or orders; advance care planning, and medication alerts or review. Common suggestions on how to improve the EHR included incorporating geriatric assessments in notes, establishing a unified place to review the 4-Ms, and creating age-specific best practice alerts.The majority of healthcare providers were not satisfied with how their EHR handles multidisciplinary geriatric assessment and geriatric care. EHR modifications would aide in reporting, communicating, and tracking the 4-Ms in EHRs.

BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines recommend screening older adults during their ED visit for delirium, fall risk/safe mobility, and home safety needs. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) tool for pre-implementation planning. METHODS: The cross-sectional survey was conducted among ED nurses at an academic medical center. The survey was adapted from the CFIR Interview Guide Tool and consisted of 21 Likert scale questions based on four CFIR domains. Potential barriers identified by the survey were mapped to identify recommended implementation strategies using ERIC. RESULTS: Forty-six of 160 potential participants (29%) responded. Intervention Characteristics: Nurses felt geriatric screening should be standard practice for all EDs (76.1% agreed some/very much) and that there was good evidence (67.4% agreed some/very much). Outer setting: The national and regional practices such as the existence of guidelines or similar practices in other hospitals were unknown to many (20.0%). Nurses did agree some/very much (64.4%) that the intervention was good for the hospital/health system. Inner Setting: 67.4% felt more staff or infrastructure and 63.0% felt more equipment were needed for the intervention. When asked to pick from a list of potential barriers, the most commonly chosen were motivational (I often don’t remember (n=27, 58.7%) and It is not a priority (n=14, 30.4%)). The identified barriers were mapped using the ERIC tool to rate potential implementation strategies. Strategies to target culture change were: identifying champions, improve adaptability, facilitate the nurses performing the intervention, and increase demand for the intervention. CONCLUSION: CFIR domains and ERIC tools are applicable to an ED intervention for older adults. This pre-implementation process could be replicated in other EDs considering implementing geriatric screening.

Objectives To determine if nonspecific symptoms and fever affect the posttest probability of acute bacterial infection in older patients in the emergency department (ED). Design Preplanned, secondary analysis of a prospective observational study. Setting Tertiary care, academic ED. Participants A total of 424 patients in the ED, 65 years or older, including all chief complaints. Measurements We identified presence of altered mental status, malaise/lethargy, and fever, as reported by the patient, as documented in the chart, or both. Bacterial infection was adjudicated by agreement among two or more of three expert reviewers. Odds ratios were calculated using univariable logistic regression. Positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively) were used to determine each symptom's effect on posttest probability of infection. Results Of 424 subjects, 77 (18%) had bacterial infection. Accounting for different reporting methods, presence of altered mental status (PLR range, 1.40-2.53) or malaise/lethargy (PLR range, 1.25-1.34) only slightly increased posttest probability of infection. Their absence did not assist with ruling out infection (NLR, greater than 0.50 for both). Fever of 38°C or higher either before or during the ED visit had moderate to large increases in probability of infection (PLR, 5.15-18.10), with initial fever in the ED perfectly predictive, but absence of fever did not rule out infection (NLR, 0.79-0.92). Results were similar when analyzing lower respiratory, gastrointestinal, and urinary tract infections (UTIs) individually. Of older adults diagnosed as having UTIs, 47% did not complain of UTI symptoms. Conclusions The presence of either altered mental status or malaise/lethargy does not substantially increase the probability of bacterial infection in older adults in the ED and should not be used alone to indicate infection in this population. Fever of 38°C or higher is associated with increased probability of infection. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:484-492, 2019.

Objectives To estimate the proportion of visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) in which a diagnosis of elder abuse is reached using two nationally representative datasets. Design Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Setting U.S. ED visits recorded in the 2012 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) or the 2011 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Participants All ED visits of individuals aged 60 and older. Measurements The primary outcome was elder abuse defined according to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. The proportion of visits with elder abuse was estimated using survey weights. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to identify demographic characteristics and common ED diagnoses associated with elder abuse. Results In 2012, NEDS contained information on 6,723,667 ED visits of older adults, representing an estimated 29,056,673 ED visits. Elder abuse was diagnosed in an estimated 3,846 visits, corresponding to a weighted diagnosis period prevalence of elder abuse in U.S. EDs of 0.013% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.012–0.015%). Neglect and physical abuse were the most common types diagnosed, accounting for 32.9% and 32.2% of cases, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed greater weighted odds of elder abuse diagnosis in women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.68–2.26) and individuals with contusions (OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.36–3.57), urinary tract infection (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.84–2.65), and septicemia (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.44–2.55). In the 2011 NHAMCS dataset, no cases of elder abuse were recorded for the 5,965 older adult ED visits. Conclusion The proportion of U.S. ED visits by older adults receiving a diagnosis of elder abuse is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the estimated prevalence in the population. Efforts to improve the identification of elder abuse in EDs may be warranted.

Objectives To estimate the proportion of older adults in the emergency department (ED) who are willing and able to use a tablet computer to answer questions. Design Prospective, ED-based cross-sectional study. Setting Two U.S. academic EDs. Participants Individuals aged 65 and older. Measurements As part of screening for another study, potential study participants were asked whether they would be willing to use a tablet computer to answer eight questions instead of answering questions orally. A custom user interface optimized for older adults was used. Trained research assistants observed study participants as they used the tablets. Ability to use the tablet was assessed based on need for assistance and number of questions answered correctly. Results Of 365 individuals approached, 248 (68%) were willing to answer screening questions, 121 of these (49%) were willing to use a tablet computer; of these, 91 (75%) were able to answer at least six questions correctly, and 35 (29%) did not require assistance. Only 14 (12%) were able to answer all eight questions correctly without assistance. Individuals aged 65 to 74 and those reporting use of a touchscreen device at least weekly were more likely to be willing and able to use the tablet computer. Of individuals with no or mild cognitive impairment, the percentage willing to use the tablet was 45%, and the percentage answering all questions correctly was 32%. Conclusion Approximately half of this sample of older adults in the ED was willing to provide information using a tablet computer, but only a small minority of these were able to enter all information correctly without assistance. Tablet computers may provide an efficient means of collecting clinical information from some older adults in the ED, but at present, it will be ineffective for a significant portion of this population.

Objectives: To assess the relationship between the number of primary care providers (PCPs) in an area and emergency department (ED) visits by older adults. Design: Population-based cross-sectional observational study. Setting: Nonfederal EDs in North Carolina in 2010. Participants: All older adults (n = 640,086) presenting to a nonfederal ED in North Carolina in 2010. Measurements: The primary outcome was the number of ED visits by older adults in each ZIP code per 100 adults aged 65 and older living in that ZIP code. A secondary outcome was the number of ED visits not resulting in hospital admission per 100 older adults. The primary predictor variable was the number of PCPs per 100 older residents for each ZIP code. Covariates included those representing healthcare need (Medicare hospitalizations, nursing home beds), predisposing factors for healthcare use (race, education, population density of older adults), and enabling factors (distance to the nearest ED). Results: In a multivariable regression model corrected for spatial clustering, ZIP code characteristics associated with ED visits included more hospitalizations by Medicare beneficiaries, more nursing home beds, and closer proximity to an ED. Number of PCPs per 100 older adult residents in each ZIP code was not associated with ED use, and the 95% confidence limit indicates at most a small effect of PCP availability on ED use. Conclusion: These findings suggest that primary care availability has at most a limited effect on ED use by older adults in North Carolina.