Life-sustaining treatment preferences in older patients when referred to the emergency department for acute geriatric assessment: a descriptive study in a Dutch hospital.

BACKGROUND: In many cases, life-sustaining treatment preferences are not timely discussed with older patients. Advance care planning (ACP) offers medical professionals an opportunity to discuss patients' preferences. We assessed how often these preferences were known when older patients were referred to the emergency department (ED) for an acute geriatric assessment. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study on patients referred to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment in a Dutch hospital. Patients were referred by general practitioners (GPs), or in the case of nursing home residents, by elderly care physicians. The referring physician was asked if preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments were known. The primary outcome was the number of patients for whom preferences were known. Secondary outcomes included which preferences, and which variables predict known preferences. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 348 patients were included in our study. At least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at referral in 45.4% (158/348) cases. In these cases, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) policy was always included. Preferences regarding invasive ventilation policy and ICU admission were known in 17% (59/348) and 10.3% (36/348) of the cases respectively. Known preferences were more frequent in cases referred by the elderly care physician than the GP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In less than half the patients, at least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at the time of referral to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment; in most cases it concerned CPR policy. We recommend optimizing ACP conversations in a non-acute setting to provide more appropriate, desired, and personalized care to older patients referred to the ED.

Diagnostic strategy using a modified clinical decision rule and D-dimer test to rule out pulmonary embolism in elderly in- and outpatients.

Excluding or confirming pulmonary embolism remains a diagnostic challenge. In elderly patients pulmonary embolism is associated with substantial co-morbidity and mortality, and many elderly patients with suspected pulmonary embolism are inpatients. The safety and efficacy of the combination of a clinical probability (CDR) and d-dimer test in excluding pulmonary embolism in this group is unclear. We retrospectively analysed data of two prospective studies of consecutive in-and outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. The patients were categorized into three age groups: <65 years, 65-75 years and >75 years. The sensitivity, negative predictive value and the proportion of patients with the combination of a non-high CDR score according to Wells (< or = 4) and a normal d-dimer result were calculated for each group. In 747 consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, sensitivity and negative predictive value of a non-high CDR and a normal d-dimer result in outpatients (n=538) of all age categories (<65 years, 65-75 years and >75 years) were both 100%. These tests were, however, less reliable for inpatients(n=209), irrespective of their age (sensitivity 91% [ CI: 79-98%], negative predictive value 88 % [CI: 74-96%]. The proportion of both in-and outpatients >75 years with a non-high CDR and a normal d-dimer concentration was only 14%, whereas this was 22% in patients 65-75 years and 41% among in-and outpatients <65 years, respectively. In elderly outpatients the combination of a non-high CDR and a normal d-dimer result is a safe strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism. However, in inpatients this algorithm is not reliable to safely exclude pulmonary embolism. In addition, the proportion of patients >65 years in which this strategy excludes pulmonary embolism is markedly lower compared to younger patients.