In the United States and around the world, effective, efficient, and reliable strategies to provide emergency care to aging adults is challenging crowded emergency departments (EDs) and a strained ...health care system. In response, geriatric emergency medicine (EM) clinicians, educators, and researchers collaborated with the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Geriatrics Society (AGS), Emergency Nurses Association (ENA), and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) to develop guidelines intended to improve ED geriatric care by enhancing expertise, educational, and quality improvement expectations; equipment; policies; and protocols. These “Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines” represent the first formal society‐led attempt to characterize the essential attribute of the geriatric ED and received formal approval from the boards of directors for each of the four societies in 2013 and 2014. This article is intended to introduce EM and geriatric health care providers to the guidelines, while providing proposals for educational dissemination, refinement via formal effectiveness evaluations and cost‐effectiveness studies, and institutional credentialing.
Resumen
En Estados Unidos y en el resto del mundo, la efectividad, la eficiencia y las estrategias fiables para proporcionar atención urgente a los adultos mayores es un reto para los servicios de urgencias (SU) saturados y un sistema sanitario sobrecargado. En respuesta, los clínicos, profesores e investigadores de la Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (MUE) Geriátrica, en colaboración con el American College of Emergency Physicians, la American Geriatrics Society, la Emergency Nurses Association y la Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, han desarrollado unas guías clínicas con la intención de mejorar la atención geriátrica en el SU mediante la mejora de los conocimientos, la formación y las expectativas de mejora de la calidad; el equipamiento; las políticas; y los protocolos. Estas Guías Clínicas del Servicio de Urgencias Geriátrico representan el primer intento formal liderado por la Sociedad para describir las características esenciales de un SU geriátrico, y recibieron la aprobación formal del Consejo Directivo de cada una de las cuatro sociedades en 2013 y 2014. Este artículo pretende presentar a los sanitarios de la MUE y la atención sanitaria geriátrica estas guías clínicas, a la vez que proporcionan propuestas para la divulgación formativa, el refinamiento formal de las evaluaciones de la efectividad y de coste‐efectividad y las instituciones de acreditación.
Study objective Accurate information about the mobility of independently living older adults is essential in determining whether they may be safely discharged home from the emergency department (ED). ...We assess the accuracy of self-reported ability to complete a simple mobility task among older ED patients. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of cognitively intact patients aged 65 years and older who were neither nursing home residents nor critically ill, conducted in 2 academic EDs. Consenting participants were asked whether they could get out of bed, walk 10 feet, turn around, and get back in bed without assistance, and if not, whether they could perform this task with a cane, walker, or assistance. Each participant was then asked to perform the task and was provided with a mobility device or assistance as needed. Results Of 272 patients who met eligibility criteria and answered the physical task question, 161 (59%) said they could do the task unassisted, 45 (17%) said they could do it with a cane or walker, 21 (8%) said they could do it with assistance, and 45 (17%) said they would be unable to do it even with assistance. Among those who said they could do the task either with or without assistance and who were subsequently willing to attempt the task (N=172), discrepancies between self-reported ability and actual performance were common. Of those who said they could perform the task without assistance, 12% required some assistance or were unable to complete the task. Of those who said they could perform the task with a cane or walker, 48% required either assistance or were unable to perform the task. Of those who said they could perform the task with assistance, 24% were unable to perform the task even with assistance. Conclusion In this sample of older adults receiving care in the ED, the accuracy of their self-reported ability to perform a simple mobility task was poor, particularly for those who reported some need for assistance. For older adults being considered for discharge who report a need for assistance with mobility, direct observation of the patient’s mobility by a member of the emergency care team should be considered.
Objectives
Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visit by older adults. Outpatient pain management following ED visits in this population is challenging as a result of ...contraindications to, and side effects from, available therapies. Shared decision‐making (SDM) between patients and emergency physicians may improve patient experiences and health outcomes. Among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, we sought to characterize their desire for involvement in the selection of outpatient analgesics. We also sought to assess the impact of SDM on change in pain at 1 week, patient satisfaction, and side effects.
Methods
This was a prospective study of adults aged 60 years and older presenting to the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain. Participants' desire to contribute to outpatient analgesic selection was assessed by phone within 24 hours of ED discharge using the Control Preferences Scale and categorized as active, collaborative, or passive. The extent to which SDM occurred in the ED was also assessed within 24 hours of discharge using the 9‐item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and scores were subsequently grouped into tertiles of low, middle, and high SDM. The primary outcome was change in pain severity between the ED visit and 1 week. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction regarding the decision about how to treat pain at home, satisfaction with the pain medication itself, and side effects.
Results
Desire of participants (N = 94) to contribute to the decision regarding selection of outpatient analgesics varied: 16% active (i.e., make the final decision themselves), 37% collaborative (i.e., share decision with provider), and 47% passive (i.e., let the doctor make the final decision). The percentage of patients who desired an active role in the decision was higher for patients who were college educated versus those who were not college educated (28% vs. 11%; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval CI = 0% to 35%), received care from a nurse practitioner versus a resident or an attending physician (32% vs. 9%; difference 23%, 95% CI = 4% to 42%), or received care from a female versus a male provider (24% vs. 5%; difference 19%, 95% = CI 5% to 32%). After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean decrease in pain severity from the ED visit to 1‐week follow‐up was not significantly different across tertiles of SDM (p = 0.06). Higher SDM scores were associated with greater satisfaction with the discharge pain medications (p = 0.006). SDM was not associated with the class of analgesic received.
Conclusions
In this sample of older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain, the reported desire of patients to contribute to decisions regarding analgesics varied based on both patient and provider characteristics. SDM was not significantly related to pain reduction in the first week or type of pain medication received, but was associated with greater patient satisfaction.
Snakebite is an urgent, unmet global medical need causing significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Varespladib is a potent inhibitor of venom secretory phospholipase A
(sPLA
) that can be ...administered orally via its prodrug, varespladib-methyl. Extensive preclinical data support clinical evaluation of varespladib as a treatment for snakebite envenoming (SBE). The protocol reported here was designed to evaluate varespladib-methyl for SBE from any snake species in multiple geographies.
BRAVO (Broad-spectrum Rapid Antidote: Varespladib Oral for snakebite) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of oral varespladib-methyl plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC plus placebo in patients presenting with acute SBE by any venomous snake species. Male and female patients 5 years of age and older who meet eligibility criteria will be randomly assigned 1:1 to varespladib-methyl or placebo. The primary outcome is the Snakebite Severity Score (SSS) that has been modified for international use. This composite outcome is based on the sum of the pulmonary, cardiovascular, nervous, hematologic, and renal systems components of the updated SSS.
This protocol was submitted to regulatory authorities in India and the US. A Clinical Trial No Objection Certificate from the India Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Drug Controller General-India, and a Notice to Proceed from the US Food and Drug Administration have been obtained. The study protocol was approved by properly constituted, valid institutional review boards or ethics committees at each study site. This study is being conducted in compliance with the April 1996 ICH Guidance for Industry GCP E6, the Integrated Addendum to ICH E6 (R2) of November 2016, and the applicable regulations of the country in which the study is conducted. The trial is registered on Clinical trials.gov, NCT#04996264 and Clinical Trials Registry-India, 2021/07/045079 000062.
Emergency Department (ED) visits provide an important but seldom realized opportunity to identify elder mistreatment. Many screening tools exist, including several that are brief and may be ...effective, but few have been specifically designed for or tested in EDs. In addition to the absence of validated tools, other challenges with implementing ED elder mistreatment screening include difficulty integrating anything longer than a few questions into a busy clinical encounter and resources required to respond to positive screens. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) offers a critical tool to facilitate elder mistreatment screening through required data entry and real-time monitoring of compliance and results. We describe current work in the field and recommend next steps including design and testing of a two-step screening process, implementation research to accelerate adoption, development of ED-based interventions and referral protocols for positive cases, and consideration of the important role of pre-hospital providers in case identification.
AbstractObjectiveTo determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with ...opioid use disorder.DesignPragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED).Setting18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform.Participants599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder.InterventionA user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral.Main outcome measuresRate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework.Results1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01).ConclusionsUser centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642.
Abstract
Background
Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the ...complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.
Methods
This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO’s established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.
Results
Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16–76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9–34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).
Conclusions
Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
