Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Impact of the geriatric emergency medicine specialist intervention on final emergency department disposition.

BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Specialist (GEMS) pilot program is an innovative approach that utilizes geriatric-trained advanced practice providers to facilitate geriatric assessments and care planning for older adults in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to explore the effect of GEMS on the use of observation status and final ED disposition. METHODS: This was a retrospective study under a target trial emulation framework. Geriatric patients (65+ years old) who presented to two ED sites within a large regional healthcare system between December 2020 and December 2022 were included. The primary outcome was final ED disposition (discharge, hospital inpatient admission, or hospital observation admission). Secondary outcomes included ED observation and ED length of stay. Non-GEMS patients were propensity score matched 5:1 to GEMS patients. Doubly robust regression was used to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of inpatient admission, discharge, hospital observation admission, ED observation admission, and estimate the mean ED length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 427 of 43,064 total patients (1.0%) received a GEMS intervention during the study period. Our analysis included 2,302 geriatric ED patients (410 GEMS, 1,892 non-GEMS) after propensity score matching. Hospital admission rates were 34.1% for GEMS compared to 56.4% for conventional treatment. GEMS patients had decreased odds of inpatient admission (OR: 0.41, 95 CI: 0.34-0.51, p < 0.001), increased odds of discharge (OR: 1.19 95 CI: 1.00-1.42, p = 0.047), hospital observation admission (OR: 2.97, 95 CI: 2.35-3.75, p < 0.001), ED observation admission (OR: 4.84 95 CI: 3.67-6.38, p < 0.001), and had a longer average ED length of stay (170 min, 95 CI: 84.6-256, p < 0.001) compared to non-GEMS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seen by GEMS during their ED visit were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge and lower rates of hospital admissions.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Patient-reported outcome measure use among older adults after emergency department care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Scaling the EQUIPPED medication safety program: Traditional and hub-and-spoke implementation models.

BACKGROUND: The EQUIPPED (Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department) medication safety program is an evidence-informed quality improvement initiative to reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed by Emergency Department (ED) providers to adults aged 65 and older at discharge. We aimed to scale-up this successful program using (1) a traditional implementation model at an ED with a novel electronic medical record and (2) a new hub-and-spoke implementation model at three new EDs within a health system that had previously implemented EQUIPPED (hub). We hypothesized that implementation speed would increase under the hub-and-spoke model without cost to PIM reduction or site engagement. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of the EQUIPPED program on PIMs for each ED, comparing their 12-month baseline to 12-month post-implementation period prescribing data, number of months to implement EQUIPPED, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. RESULTS: The proportion of PIMs at all four sites declined significantly from pre- to post-EQUIPPED: at traditional site 1 from 8.9% (8.1-9.6) to 3.6% (3.6-9.6) (p < 0.001); at spread site 1 from 12.2% (11.2-13.2) to 7.1% (6.1-8.1) (p < 0.001); at spread site 2 from 11.3% (10.1-12.6) to 7.9% (6.4-8.8) (p = 0.045); and at spread site 3 from 16.2% (14.9-17.4) to 11.7% (10.3-13.0) (p < 0.001). Time to implement was equivalent at all sites across both models. Interview data, reflecting a wide scope of responsibilities for the champion at the traditional site and a narrow scope at the spoke sites, indicated disproportionate barriers to engagement at the spoke sites. CONCLUSIONS: EQUIPPED was successfully implemented under both implementation models at four new sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating the feasibility of adapting EQUIPPED to complex, real-world conditions. The hub-and-spoke model offers an effective way to scale-up EQUIPPED though a speed or quality advantage could not be shown.

Automating risk stratification for geriatric syndromes in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric emergency department (GED) guidelines endorse screening older patients for geriatric syndromes in the ED, but there have been significant barriers to widespread implementation. The majority of screening programs require engagement of a clinician, nurse, or social worker, adding to already significant workloads at a time of record-breaking ED patient volumes, staff shortages, and hospital boarding crises. Automated, electronic health record (EHR)-embedded risk stratification approaches may be an alternate solution for extending the reach of the GED mission by directing human actions to a smaller subset of higher risk patients. METHODS: We define the concept of automated risk stratification and screening using existing EHR data. We discuss progress made in three potential use cases in the ED: falls, cognitive impairment, and end-of-life and palliative care, emphasizing the importance of linking automated screening with systems of healthcare delivery. RESULTS: Research progress and operational deployment vary by use case, ranging from deployed solutions in falls screening to algorithmic validation in cognitive impairment and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Automated risk stratification offers a potential solution to one of the most pressing problems in geriatric emergency care: identifying high-risk populations of older adults most appropriate for specific GED care. Future work is needed to realize the promise of improved care with less provider burden by creating tools suitable for widespread deployment as well as best practices for their implementation and governance.

Dementia risk analysis using temporal event modeling on a large real-world dataset.

The objective of the study is to identify healthcare events leading to a diagnosis of dementia from a large real-world dataset. This study uses a data-driven approach to identify temporally ordered pairs and trajectories of healthcare codes in the electronic health record (EHR). This allows for discovery of novel temporal risk factors leading to an outcome of interest that may otherwise be unobvious. We identified several known (Down syndrome RR = 116.1, thiamine deficiency RR = 76.1, and Parkinson's disease RR = 41.1) and unknown (Brief psychotic disorder RR = 68.6, Toxic effect of metals RR = 40.4, and Schizoaffective disorders RR = 40.0) factors for a specific dementia diagnosis. The associations with the greatest risk for any dementia diagnosis were found to be primarily related to mental health (Brief psychotic disorder RR = 266.5, Dissociative and conversion disorders RR = 169.8), or neurologic conditions or procedures (Dystonia RR = 121.9, Lumbar Puncture RR = 119.0). Trajectory and clustering analysis identified factors related to cerebrovascular disorders, as well as diagnoses which increase the risk of toxic imbalances. The results of this study have the ability to provide valuable insights into potential patient progression towards dementia and improve recognition of patients at risk for developing dementia.

An Outcome Comparison Between Geriatric and Nongeriatric Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe diagnosis rates and compare common process outcomes between geriatric emergency departments (EDs) and nongeriatric EDs participating in the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of ED visits in calendar year 2021 within the CEDR by older adults. The analytic sample included 6,444,110 visits at 38 geriatric EDs and 152 matched nongeriatric EDs, with the geriatric ED status determined based on linkage to the American College of Emergency Physicians' Geriatric ED Accreditation program. Stratified by age, we assessed diagnosis rates (X/1000) for 4 common geriatric syndrome conditions and a set of common process outcomes including the ED length of stay, discharge rates, and 72-hour revisit rates. RESULTS: Across all age categories, geriatric EDs had higher diagnosis rates than nongeriatric EDs for 3 of the 4 following geriatric syndrome conditions of interest: urinary tract infection, dementia, and delirium/altered mental status. The median ED site-level length of stay for older adults was lower at geriatric EDs compared with that at nongeriatric EDs, whereas 72-hour revisit rates were similar across all age categories. Geriatric EDs exhibited a median discharge rate of 67.5% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 60.8% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 55.6% for adults aged >85 years. Comparatively, the median discharge rate at nongeriatric ED sites was 69.0% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 64.2% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 61.3% for adults aged >85 years. CONCLUSION: Geriatric EDs had higher geriatric syndrome diagnosis rates, lower ED lengths of stay, and similar discharge and 72-hour revisit rates when compared with nongeriatric EDs in the CEDR. These findings provide the first benchmarks for emergency care process outcomes in geriatric EDs compared with nongeriatric EDs.

Automatable end-of-life screening for older adults in the emergency department using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits are common at the end-of-life, but the identification of patients with life-limiting illness remains a key challenge in providing timely and resource-sensitive advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care services. To date, there are no validated, automatable instruments for ED end-of-life screening. Here, we developed a novel electronic health record (EHR) prognostic model to screen older ED patients at high risk for 6-month mortality and compare its performance to validated comorbidity indices. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of ED visits from adults aged ≥65 years who visited any of 9 EDs across a large regional health system between 2014 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression that included clinical and demographic variables, vital signs, and laboratory data was used to develop a 6-month mortality predictive model-the Geriatric End-of-life Screening Tool (GEST) using five-fold cross-validation on data from 8 EDs. Performance was compared to the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. Reproducibility was tested against data from the remaining independent ED within the health system. We then used GEST to investigate rates of ACP documentation availability and code status orders in the EHR across risk strata. RESULTS: A total of 431,179 encounters by 123,128 adults were included in this study with a 6-month mortality rate of 12.2%. Charlson (AUROC (95% CI): 0.65 (0.64-0.69)) and Elixhauser indices (0.69 (0.68-0.70)) were outperformed by GEST (0.82 (0.82-0.83)). GEST displayed robust performance across demographic subgroups and in our independent validation site. Among patients with a greater than 30% mortality risk using GEST, only 5.0% had ACP documentation; 79.0% had a code status previously ordered, of which 70.7% were full code. In decision curve analysis, GEST provided greater net benefit than the Charlson and Elixhauser scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic models using EHR data robustly identify high mortality risk older adults in the ED for whom code status, ACP, or palliative care interventions may be of benefit. Although all tested methods identified patients approaching the end-of-life, GEST was most performant. These tools may enable resource-sensitive end-of-life screening in the ED.

Research and policy recommendations from the SOTA XVI: State of the Art Conference on VA Emergency Medicine.

To better understand and prioritize research on emergency care for Veterans, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development convened the 16th State of the Art Conference on VA Emergency Medicine (SAVE) in Winter 2022 with emergency clinicians, researchers, operational leaders, and additional stakeholders in attendance. Three specific areas of focus were identified including older Veterans, Veterans with mental health needs, and emergency care in the community (non-VA) settings. Among older Veterans, identified priorities included examination of variation in care and its impact on patient outcomes, utilization, and costs; quality of emergency department (ED) care transitions and strategies to improve them; impact of geriatric ED care improvement initiatives; and use of geriatric assessment tools in the ED. For Veterans with mental health needs, priorities included enhancing the reach of effective, multicomponent suicide prevention interventions; development and evaluation of interventions to manage substance use disorders; and identifying and examining safety and effective acute psychosis practices. Community (non-VA) emergency care priorities included examining changes in patterns of use and costs in VA and the community care settings as a result of recent policy and coverage changes (with an emphasis on modifiable factors); understanding quality, safety, and Veteran experience differences between VA and community settings; and better understanding follow-up needs among Veterans who received emergency care (or urgent care) and how well those needs are being coordinated, communicated, and met. Beyond these three groups, cross-cutting themes included the use of telehealth and implementation science to refine multicomponent interventions, care coordination, and data needs from both VA and non-VA sources. Findings from this conference will be disseminated through multiple mechanisms and contribute to future funding applications focused on improving Veteran health.

Dissemination and implementation of age-friendly care and geriatric emergency department accreditation at Veterans Affairs hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) and the National Emergency Medicine (EM) Program partnered to improve emergency care for older Veterans. A core team disseminated age-friendly models of care via education and standardization of practice with the goal of multisite geriatric emergency department (GED) accreditation. We compare rates of GED screening at VAs with GED implementation to those without. METHODS: Observational evaluation of GED screening of older Veterans (≥65 years) at VA Emergency Departments (ED) from January 2018 to March 2022, during peak pandemic years. Data were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse of Veteran ED visit encounters to track documented GED screens and Veteran demographic data. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare screening completion across different levels of GED accreditation, adjusting for potential confounding. RESULTS: During this period, over 1.07 million Veterans ≥ 65 years of age made 4.07 million VA ED visits. Mean (±SD) age was 73.4 (±7.2) years, 96.5% were male, 68% were White, and 89.9% made their index ED visit at a non-GED VA ED. As of early 2022, a total of 50 of 111 VA EDs have achieved or applied for GED accreditation. During early 2022, 8.3% of all visits by older Veterans had at least one GED screen documented; 15% were screened at Levels 1-3 GED versus 2.2% at non-GED facilities. Screens identifying older adults at risk for poor outcomes, for delirium, and for falls had the highest usage rates within VA GEDs. Veterans seen at Level 1 GEDs had a 76-fold greater odds of having a GED screen than at Level 3 GEDs (odds ratio 75.8, 95% confidence interval 72.8-79.0). CONCLUSIONS: Through VA National Office of GEC and EM Program partnership, the VA has created, standardized, and disseminated a GED Model of Care, despite the pandemic. GED accreditation was associated with GED screen implementation, with Level 1 having the highest screening prevalence.

Emergency department care transition barriers: A qualitative study of care partners of older adults with cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION: After emergency department (ED) discharge, persons living with cognitive impairment (PLWCI) and their care partners are particularly at risk for adverse outcomes. We sought to identify the barriers experienced by care partners of PLWCI during ED discharge care transitions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 25 care partners of PLWCI discharged from four EDs. We used the validated 4AT and care partner-completed AD8 screening tools, respectively, to exclude care partners of older adults with concern for delirium and include care partners of older adults with cognitive impairment. We conducted recorded, semi-structured interviews using a standardized guide, and two team members coded and analyzed all professional transcriptions to identify emerging themes and representative quotations. RESULTS: Care partners' mean age was 56.7 years, 80% were female, and 24% identified as African American. We identified four major barriers regarding ED discharge care transitions among care partners of PLWCI: (1) unique care considerations while in the ED setting impact the perceived success of the care transition, (2) poor communication and lack of care partner engagement was a commonplace during the ED discharge process, (3) care partners experienced challenges and additional responsibilities when aiding during acute illness and recovery phases, and (4) navigating the health care system after an ED encounter was perceived as difficult by care partners. DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate critical barriers faced during ED discharge care transitions among care partners of PLWCI. Findings from this work may inform the development of novel care partner-reported outcome measures as well as ED discharge care transition interventions targeting care partners.

A Qualitative Study of "What Matters" to Older Adults in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: The "4Ms" model - What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility - is increasingly gaining attention in age-friendly health systems, yet a feasible approach to identifying what matters to older adults in the emergency department (ED) is lacking. Adapting the "What Matters" questions to the ED setting, we sought to describe the concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians. METHODS: We conducted 46 dyadic semi-structured interviews of cognitively intact older adults and their treating clinicians. We used the "What Matters" conversation guide to explore patients' 1) concerns and 2) desired outcomes. We then asked analogous questions to each patient's treating clinician regarding the patient's priorities. Interviews were professionally transcribed and coded using an inductive approach of thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Interviews with older adults lasted a mean of three minutes, with a range of 1-8 minutes. Regarding patients' concerns, five themes emerged from older adults: 1) concern through a family member or outpatient clinician recommendation; 2) no concern, with a high degree of trust in the healthcare system; 3) concerns regarding symptom cause identification; 4) concerns regarding symptom resolution; and 5) concerns regarding preservation of their current status. Regarding desired outcomes, five priority themes emerged among older adults: 1) obtaining a diagnosis; 2) returning to their home environment; 3) reducing or resolving symptoms; 4) maintaining self-care and independence; and 5) gaining reassurance. Responding to what they believed mattered most to older adult patients, ED clinicians believed that older adults were concerned primarily about symptom cause identification and resolution and primarily desired a return to the home environment and symptom reduction. CONCLUSION: This work identifies concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians as well as the feasibility of incorporating the "What Matters" questions within ED clinical practice.