Assessing Older Patients' Vulnerability in the Emergency Department: A Study of InterRAI ED Screener Accuracy - Michalski-Monnerat, C.; Carron, P. N.; Nguyen, S.; Bula, C.; Mabire, C. (J Am Geriatr Soc, 2020)
BACKGROUND: Identifying vulnerable older patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) who are at increased risk for adverse events and require a comprehensive geriatric assessment remains a major challenge. The interRAI Emergency Department Screener (EDS) was developed for this specific purpose, but data regarding its validity are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) convergent validity of the EDS with results of a geriatrician's assessment in defining the need for prompt versus delayed/no further geriatric assessment and (2) predictive validity of the EDS for hospital admission, prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: ED of an academic hospital in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Older patients, aged 75 years or older (N = 202), who visited the ED over a 4-month period. Patients with life-threatening conditions were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Data for EDS were collected by two clinical nurses. A brief geriatric assessment was performed separately and interpreted by a geriatrician blinded to the EDS results. Orientation after ED discharge, hospital LOS, and 30-day readmission were retrieved from the administrative database. RESULTS: Participants were aged 83.2 +/- 5.4 years, 56.9% were female, and 43.6% lived alone. Frequent findings at geriatric assessment were impairment in gait/balance (69.3%), polypharmacy (64.9%), cognitive impairment/delirium (48.2%), risk of malnutrition (46.0%), and mood impairment (38.1%). The proportions of participants who required prompt, delayed, and no further geriatric assessment, according to the EDS, were 27.2%, 29.2%, and 43.6%, respectively. The EDS had low sensitivity in predicting hospital admission (28.8%), prolonged LOS (26.3%), and 30-day readmission (26.1%), with the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) being 51.8%, 48.1%, and 49.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EDS performed poorly in both convergent and predictive validity analyses, precluding its use as a screening tool in this ED environment. Further efforts should be undertaken to better target interventions to reduce adverse health trajectories in the older ED population.
Keywords: journalArticle; *Geriatric Assessment; *Mass Screening; *Predictive Value of Tests; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cognitive Dysfunction; Emergency Service, Hospital/*statistics & numerical data; Female; Gait; Hospitalization; Humans; InterRAI; Male; Patient Discharge; Patient Readmission; Prospective Studies; Switzerland; emergency service; geriatric assessment; hospital