The impact of frailty Screening of Older adults with muLtidisciplinary assessment of those At Risk during emergency hospital attendance on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care (SOLAR): a randomised controlled trial

Aoife Leahy, Rachel McNamara, Catriona Reddin, Gillian Corey, Ida Carroll, SOLAR team, Aoife O'Neill, Darragh Flannery, Collette Devlin, Louise Barry, Brian MacCarthy, Niamh Cummins, Elaine Shanahan, Denys Shchetkovsky, Damien Ryan, Margaret O'Connor, Rose Galvin, Aoife Leahy, Rachel McNamara, Catriona Reddin, Gillian Corey, Ida Carroll, SOLAR team, Aoife O'Neill, Darragh Flannery, Collette Devlin, Louise Barry, Brian MacCarthy, Niamh Cummins, Elaine Shanahan, Denys Shchetkovsky, Damien Ryan, Margaret O'Connor, Rose Galvin

Abstract

Background: Older people account for 25% of all Emergency Department (ED) admissions. This is expected to rise with an ageing demographic. Older people often present to the ED with complex medical needs in the setting of multiple comorbidities. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has been shown to improve outcomes in an inpatient setting but clear evidence of benefit in the ED setting has not been established. It is not feasible to offer this resource-intensive assessment to all older adults in a timely fashion. Screening tools for frailty have been used to identify those at most risk for adverse outcomes following ED visit. The overall aim of this study is to examine the impact of CGA on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care in an undifferentiated population of frail older people with medical complaints who present to the ED and Acute Medical Assessment Unit.

Methods: This will be a parallel 1:1 allocation randomised control trial. All patients who are ≥ 75 years will be screened for frailty using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) tool. Those with a score of ≥ 2 on the ISAR will be randomised. The treatment arm will undergo geriatric medicine team-led CGA in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit whereas the non-treatment arm will undergo usual patient care. A dedicated multidisciplinary team of a specialist geriatric medicine doctor, senior physiotherapist, specialist nurse, pharmacist, senior occupational therapist and senior medical social worker will carry out the assessment, as well as interventions that arise from that assessment. Primary outcomes will be the length of stay in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit. Secondary outcomes will include ED re-attendance, re-hospitalisation, functional decline, quality of life and mortality at 30 days and 180 days. These will be determined by telephone consultation and electronic records by a research nurse blinded to group allocation.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Service Executive (HSE) Mid-Western Regional Hospital Research Ethics Committee (088/2020). Our lay dissemination strategy will be developed in collaboration with our Patient and Public Involvement stakeholder panel of older people at the Ageing Research Centre and we will present our findings in peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04629690 . Registered on November 16, 2020.

Keywords: Comprehensive geriatric assessment; Emergency department; Frailty; ISAR; Older People.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have any competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example template of recommended content for the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments. Recommended content can be displayed using various schematic formats. See SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration for examples from protocols. **List specific time points in this row. t1 Assessment. t2 Admission OR discharge. t3 30 day outcomes. t4 180 day outcomes

References

    1. Department of Health: Health Service Capacity Review 2018. Review of health demand and capacity requirements in Ireland to 2031. Available from . Accessed 30 Oct 2020.
    1. United N. World Population Ageing 2019 [Internet]. Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2019. p. 1–111. Available from: . Accessed 09 Sept 2020.
    1. Galvin R, Gilleit Y, Wallace E, Cousins G, Bolmer M, Rainer T, Smith SM, Fahey T. Adverse outcomes in older adults attending emergency departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) screening tool. Age Ageing. 2017;46(2):179–186.
    1. Ukkonen M, Jämsen E, Zeitlin R, Pauniaho SL. Emergency department visits in older patients: A population-based survey. BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0236-3.
    1. Parker SG, McCue P, Phelps K, McCleod A, Arora S, Nockels K, et al. What is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA)? An umbrella review. Age Ageing. 2018;47(1):149–155. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx166.
    1. Ellis G, Gardner M, Tsiachristas A, Langhorne P, Burke O, Harwood RH, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12 [cited 2020 Sep 15]; Available from: .
    1. Matarese M, Palombi M. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service. Int J Nurs Prac. 2019;25(5):e12746–e12746.
    1. Garrard JW, Cox NJ, Dodds RM, Roberts HC, Sayer AA. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(2):197–205. doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01183-w.
    1. Conroy SP, Stevens T, Parker SG, Gladman JR. A systematic review of comprehensive geriatric assessment to improve outcomes for frail older people being rapidly discharged from acute hospital:‘interface geriatrics’. Age Ageing. 2011;40(4):436–443. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afr060.
    1. CONSORT. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. 2010. Available from: . Accessed 09 Sept 2020.
    1. McCusker J, Bellavance F, Cardin S, Trepanier S, Verdon J, Ardman O. Detection of older people at increased risk of adverse health outcomes after an emergency visit: the ISAR screening tool. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(10):1229–1237. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb05204.x.
    1. Parenti N, Reggiani MLB, Iannone P, Percudani D, Dowding D. A systematic review on the validity and reliability of an emergency department triage scale, the Manchester Triage System. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(7):1062–1069. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.01.013.
    1. Mahoney FI. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Med J. 1965;14(2):61–5.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5 L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland 2020. . Accessed 09 Mar 2020.
    1. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, Mitnitski A. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. Cmaj. 2005;173(5):489–495. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050051.
    1. Preston L, van Oppen JD, Conroy SP, et al. Improving outcomes for older people in the emergency department: a review of reviews. Emerg Med J. 2020. 10.1136/emermed-2020-209514.
    1. Hughes JM, Freiermuth CE, Shepherd-Banigan M, Ragsdale L, Eucker SA, Goldstein K, Hastings SN, Rodriguez RL, Fulton J, Ramos K, Tabriz AA. Emergency department interventions for older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(7):1516–1525. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15854.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa