Can geriatric approaches support the care of old patients in emergency departments? A review from a Swiss ED

In the coming decades, old patients will account for an increasing proportion of emergency department (ED) visits. During or after their stay in the ED, they more frequently suffer adverse outcomes than younger patients. There is evidence that specific age-centred approaches improve the outcomes. We therefore reviewed specific conditions needing particular attention in older ED patients, such as cognitive disorders and delirium, impaired mobility and falls, as well as problems related to the activities of daily living, disability, poly-pharmacy, adverse drug effects, co-morbidity and atypical presentation. We also propose steps to further improve the quality of care in older ED patients by using appropriate age-centred management.

A novel multidimensional geriatric screening tool in the ED: evaluation of feasibility and clinical relevance

PURPOSES Geriatric problems frequently go undetected in older patients in emergency departments (EDs), thus increasing their risk of adverse outcomes. We evaluated a novel emergency geriatric screening (EGS) tool designed to detect geriatric problems. BASIC PROCEDURES The EGS tool consisted of short validated instruments used to screen 4 domains (cognition, falls, mobility, and activities of daily living). Emergency geriatric screening was introduced for ED patients 75 years or older throughout a 4-month period. We analyzed the prevalence of abnormal EGS and whether EGS increased the number of EGS-related diagnoses in the ED during the screening, as compared with a preceding control period. MAIN FINDINGS Emergency geriatric screening was performed on 338 (42.5%) of 795 patients presenting during screening. Emergency geriatric screening was unfeasible in 175 patients (22.0%) because of life-threatening conditions and was not performed in 282 (35.5%) for logistical reasons. Emergency geriatric screening took less than 5 minutes to perform in most (85.8%) cases. Among screened patients, 285 (84.3%) had at least 1 abnormal EGS finding. In 270 of these patients, at least 1 abnormal EGS finding did not result in a diagnosis in the ED and was reported for further workup to subsequent care. During screening, 142 patients (42.0%) had at least 1 diagnosis listed within the 4 EGS domains, significantly more than the 29.3% in the control period (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.29; P<.001). Emergency geriatric screening predicted nursing home admission after the in-hospital stay (odds ratio for ≥3 vs <3 abnormal domains 12.13; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-52.72; P=.001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS The novel EGS is feasible, identifies previously undetected geriatric problems, and predicts determinants of subsequent care.

Psychological distress in medical seeking ED care for somatic reasons: results of a systematic review

Objectives: The aim of this systematic literature review is to investigate (A) currently used instruments for assessing psychological distress, (B) the prevalence of psychological distress in medical emergency department (ED) patients with acute somatic conditions and (C) empirical evidence on how predictors are associated with psychological distress. Methods: We conducted an electronic literature search using three databases to identify studies that used validated instruments for detection of psychological distress in adult patients presented to the ED with somatic (non-psychiatric) complaints. From a total of 1688 potential articles, 18 studies were selected for in-depth review. Results: A total of 13 instruments have been applied for assessment of distress including screening questionnaires and briefly structured clinical interviews. Using these instruments, the prevalence of psychological distress detected in medical ED patients was between 4% and 47%. Psychological distress in general and particularly depression and anxiety have been found to be associated with demographic factors (eg, female gender, middle age) and illness-related variables (eg, urgency of triage category). Some studies reported that coexisting psychological distress of medical patients identified in the ED was associated with physical and psychological health status after ED discharge. Importantly, during routine clinical care, only few patients with psychological distress were diagnosed by their treating physicians. Conclusions: There is strong evidence that psychological distress is an important and prevalent cofactor in medically ill patients presenting to the ED with harmful associations with (subjective) health outcomes. To prove causality, future research should investigate whether screening and lowering psychological distress with specific interventions would result in better patient outcomes.