Key Summary PointsAim To provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions amongst GEM professionals throughout Europe. Findings A list of 10 research questions was identified and... Show moreKey Summary PointsAim To provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions amongst GEM professionals throughout Europe. Findings A list of 10 research questions was identified and prioritised. Message The list of research questions may serve as guidance for scientists, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.Purpose Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. Methods A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. Results In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? Conclusion This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects. Show less
Blomaard, L.C.; Mooijaart, S.P.; Bolt, S.; Lucke, J.A.; Gelder, J. de; Booijen, A.M.; ... ; Groot, B. de 2020
Background: risk stratification tools for older patients in the emergency department (ED) have rarely been implemented successfully in routine care.Objective: to evaluate the feasibility and... Show moreBackground: risk stratification tools for older patients in the emergency department (ED) have rarely been implemented successfully in routine care.Objective: to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the 'Acutely Presenting Older Patient' (APOP) screener, which identifies older ED patients at the highest risk of adverse outcomes within 2 minutes at presentation.Design and setting: 2-month prospective cohort study, after the implementation of the APOP screener in ED routine care in the Leiden University Medical Center.Subjects: all consecutive ED patients aged >= 70 years.Methods: feasibility of screening was assessed by measuring the screening rate and by identifying patient- and organisation-related determinants of screening completion. Acceptability was assessed by collecting experienced barriers of screening completion from triage-nurses.Results: we included 953 patients with a median age of 77 (IQR 72-82) years, of which 560 (59%) patients were screened. Patients had a higher probability of being screened when they had a higher age (OR 1.03 (95%CI 1.01-1.06), P = 0.017). Patients had a lower probability of being screened when they were triaged very urgent (OR 0.55 (0.39-0.78), P = 0.001) or when the number of patients upon arrival was high (OR 0.63 (0.47-0.86), P = 0.003). Experienced barriers of screening completion were patient-related ('patient was too sick'), organisation-related ('ED was too busy') and personnel-related ('forgot to complete screening').Conclusion: with more than half of all older patients screened, feasibility and acceptability of screening in routine ED care is very promising. To further improve screening completion, solutions are needed for patients who present with high urgency and during ED rush hours. Show less
BACKGROUND Urgency triage in the emergency department (ED) is important for early identification of potentially lethal conditions and extensive resource utilization. However, in older patients,... Show moreBACKGROUND Urgency triage in the emergency department (ED) is important for early identification of potentially lethal conditions and extensive resource utilization. However, in older patients, urgency triage systems could be improved by taking geriatric vulnerability into account. We investigated the association of geriatric vulnerability screening in addition to triage urgency levels with 30-day mortality in older ED patients.DESIGN Secondary analysis of the observational multicenter Acutely Presenting Older Patient (APOP) study.SETTING EDs within four Dutch hospitals.PARTICIPANTS Consecutive patients, aged 70 years or older, who were prospectively included.MEASUREMENTS Patients were triaged using the Manchester Triage System (MTS). In addition, the APOP screener was used as a geriatric screening tool. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Comparison was made between mortality within the geriatric high- and low-risk screened patients in every urgency triage category. We calculated the difference in explained variance of mortality by adding the geriatric screener (APOP) to triage urgency (MTS) by calculating Nagelkerke R-2.RESULTS We included 2,608 patients with a median age of 79 (interquartile range = 74-84) years, of whom 521 (20.0%) patients were categorized as high risk according to geriatric screening. Patients were triaged on urgency as standard (27.2%), urgent (58.5%), and very urgent (14.3%). In total, 132 (5.1%) patients were deceased within a period of 30 days. Within every urgency triage category, 30-day mortality was threefold higher in geriatric high-risk compared to low-risk patients (overall = 11.7% vs 3.4%; P < .001). The explained variance of 30-day mortality with triage urgency was 1.0% and increased to 6.3% by adding the geriatric screener.CONCLUSION Combining triage urgency with geriatric screening has the potential to improve triage, which may help clinicians to deliver early appropriate care to older ED patients. Show less
Background: Acutely hospitalised older patients with indications related to internal medicine have high risks of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether risk stratification using the Acutely... Show moreBackground: Acutely hospitalised older patients with indications related to internal medicine have high risks of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether risk stratification using the Acutely Presenting Older Patient (APOP) screening tool associates with clinical outcomes in this patient group.Methods: Patients aged >= 70 years who visited the Emergency Department (ED) and were acutely hospitalised for internal medicine were followed prospectively. The APOP screener assesses demographics, physical and cognitive function at ED presentation, and predicts 3-month mortality and functional decline in the older ED population. Patients with a predicted risk >= 45% were considered 'high risk'. Clinical outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse outcomes were mortality and functional decline, 3 and 12 months after hospitalisation.Results: We included 319 patients, with a median age of 80 (IQR 74-85) years, of whom 94 (29.5%) were categorised as 'high risk' by the APOP screener. These patients had a longer hospital LOS compared to 'low risk' patients (5 (IQR 3-10) vs. 3 (IQR 1-7) days, respectively; p = 0.006). At 3 months, adverse outcomes were more frequent in 'high risk' patients compared to 'low risk' patients (59.6% vs. 34.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 12 months, adverse outcomes (67.0% vs. 46.2%, respectively; p = 0.001) and mortality (48.9% vs. 28.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) were greater in 'high risk' compared to 'low risk' patients.Conclusion: The APOP screener identifies acutely hospitalised internal medicine patients at high risk for poor short and long-term outcomes. Early risk stratification at admission could aid in individualised treatment decisions to optimise outcomes for older patients. Show less
