Cargando…
Risk stratification and rapid geriatric screening in an emergency department – a quasi-randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: To determine if risk stratification followed by rapid geriatric screening in an emergency department (ED) reduced functional decline, ED reattendance and hospitalisation. METHOD: This was a quasi-randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised by the last digit of their national re...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4161268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-98 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: To determine if risk stratification followed by rapid geriatric screening in an emergency department (ED) reduced functional decline, ED reattendance and hospitalisation. METHOD: This was a quasi-randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised by the last digit of their national registration identity card (NRIC). Odd number controls received standard ED care; even number patients received geriatric screening, followed by intervention and/or onward referrals. Patients were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: There were 500 and 280 patients in the control and intervention groups. The intervention group had higher Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST) scores (34.3% vs 25.4% TRST ≥3, p = 0.01) and lower baseline Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) scores (22.84 vs 24.18, p < 0.01). 82.9% of the intervention group had unmet needs; 62.1% accepted our interventions. Common positive findings were fall risk (65.0%), vision (61.4%), and footwear (58.2%). 28.2% were referred to a geriatric clinic and 11.8% were admitted. 425 (85.0%) controls and 234 (83.6%) in the intervention group completed their follow-up. After adjusting for TRST and baseline IADL, the intervention group had significant preservation in function (Basic ADL -0.99 vs -0.24, p < 0.01; IADL -2.57 vs +0.45, p < 0.01) at 12 months. The reduction in ED reattendance (OR0.75, CI 0.55-1.03, p = 0.07) and hospitalization (OR0.77, CI0.57-1.04, p = 0.09) were not significant, however the real difference would have been wider as 21.2% of the control group received geriatric screening at the request of the ED doctor. A major limitation was that a large proportion of patients who were randomized to the intervention group either refused (18.8%) or left the ED before being approached (32.0%). These two groups were not followed up, and hence were excluded in our analysis. CONCLUSION: Risk stratification and focused geriatric screening in ED resulted in significant preservation of patients’ function at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Healthcare Group (NHG) Domain Specific Review Board (DSRB) C/09/023. Registered 5th March 2009. |
---|