Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Internationally Emergency Department (ED) crowding is a significant health services delivery issue posing a major risk to population health. ED crowding affects both the quality and access of health services and is associated with poorer patient outcomes and increased mortality rates. In Ireland the practising of “Corridor Medicine” and “Trolley Crises” have become prevalent. The objectives of this study are to describe the demographic and clinical profile of patients attending regional EDs and to investigate the factors influencing ED utilisation in Ireland. Methods This was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study and recruitment occurred at a selection of urban and rural EDs ( n  = 5) in Ireland throughout 2020. At each site all adults presenting over a 24 h census period were eligible for inclusion. Clinical data were collected via electronic records and a questionnaire provided information on demographics, healthcare utilisation, service awareness and factors influencing the decision to attend the ED. Results Demographics differed significantly between ED sites in terms of age ( p  ≤ 0.05), socioeconomic status ( p  ≤ 0.001), and proximity of health services ( p  ≤ 0.001). Prior to ED attendance 64% of participants accessed community health services. Most participants (70%) believed the ED was the “best place” for emergency care or attended due to lack of awareness of other services (30%). Musculoskeletal injuries were the most common reason for presentation to the ED in this study (24%) and almost a third of patients (31%) reported presenting to the ED for an x-ray or scan. Conclusions This study has identified regional and socioeconomic differences in the drivers of ED presentations and factors influencing ED attendance in Ireland from the patient perspective. Improved awareness of, and provision of alternative care pathways could potentially decrease ED attendances, which would be important in the context of reducing ED crowding during the COVID-19 pandemic. New strategies for integration of acute care in the community must acknowledge and plan for these issues as a universal approach is unlikely to be implemented successfully due to regional factors.

Background In emergency care settings, screening for disease or risk factors for poor health outcomes among older adults can identify those in need of specialist and early intervention. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing older person-centred screening in emergency care settings in the Mid-West of Ireland. Methods This study employed a qualitative descriptive design underpinned by the theoretical domains framework (TDF). This design informs implementation strategy by establishing a theoretical foundation for focused objectives. One on one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) to explore their screening experiences with older adults in emergency care settings. Information power guided sample size calculation. In data analysis, verbatim interview transcripts were deductively mapped to TDF constructs forming meta-themes that revealed specific barriers and facilitators to person-centred screening for older individuals. These findings will directly inform implementation strategies. Results Three themes were identified; Preconditions to Implementing Older Person-Centred Screening; Knowledge and Skills Required to Implement Older Person-centred Screening and Motivation to Deliver Older Person-Centred Screening. Overall, screening in emergency care settings is a complicated process which is ideally undertaken by knowledgeable and skilled practitioners with a keen awareness of team dynamics and environmental challenges in acute care settings. These practitioners serve as champions and sources of specialist knowledge and practice. Less experienced clinicians seek supervision and support to undertake screening competently and confidently. Education on frailty and aged related syndromes facilitates screening uptake. Recognition of the value of screening is a clear motivator and leadership is vital to sustain screening practices. Conclusions Screening serves as an entry point for specialist intervention, necessitating a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach for effective implementation in emergency care settings. Strengthening screening practices for older adults who attend emergency care settings involves employing audit, supervision and tailored supports. Skilled and experienced practitioners play a key role in mentoring and supporting the broader MDT in screening engagement. Long-term and sustainable implementation relies on utilising existing managerial, practice development and educational resources to underpin screening practices. Communication between Emergency Department (ED) staff, the specialist team and wider geriatric team is vital to ensure a cohesive approach to delivering older person-centred care in the ED.

Background Older adults are at increased risk for disease severity and poorer prognosis following COVID-19 infection. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the impact of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the acute or post-acute hospital setting for older adults with COVID-19. Methods The Cochrane library, EMBASE, Cinahl and Medline (via EBSCO), PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022 and a repeat search was completed in March 2023. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers. Studies reporting outcomes for older adults following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (provided by two or more Health and Social Care Professionals) were included. Both observational and experimental study designs were included. The primary outcome was functional ability. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition, acute hospital and rehabilitation unit length of stay, mortality, primary and secondary healthcare utilisation, and long-term effects of COVID-19. Results Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 570 older adults. Where reported, older adults stayed in the acute hospital for a mean of 18 days (95%CI, 13.35- 23.13 days) and in rehabilitation units for 19 days (95%CI, 15.88–21.79 days). There was a significant improvement in functional ability among older adults with COVID-19 who received multidisciplinary rehabilitation (REM, SMD = 1.46, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.98). The proportion of older adults who were discharged directly home following rehabilitation ranged from 62 to 97%. Two studies reported a 2% inpatient mortality rate of older persons during rehabilitative care. No study followed up patients after the point of discharge and no study reported on long term effects of COVID-19. Conclusions Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in improved functional outcomes on discharge from rehabilitation units/centres for older adults with COVID-19. Findings also highlight the need for further research into the long-term effect of rehabilitation for older adults following COVID-19. Future research should comprehensively describe multidisciplinary rehabilitation in terms of disciplines involved and the intervention provided.

Background Utilisation of the Emergency Department (ED) for non-urgent care increases demand for services, therefore reducing inappropriate or avoidable attendances is an important area for intervention in prevention of ED crowding. This study aims to develop a consensus between clinicians across care settings about the “appropriateness” of attendances to the ED in Ireland. Methods The Better Data, Better Planning study was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study investigating factors influencing ED utilisation in Ireland. Data was compiled in patient summary files which were assessed for measures of appropriateness by an academic General Practitioner (GP) and academic Emergency Medicine Consultant (EMC) National Panel. In cases where consensus was not reached charts were assessed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). At each site all files were autonomously assessed by local GP-EMC panels. Results The National Panel determined that 11% (GP) to 38% (EMC) of n = 306 lower acuity presentations could be treated by a GP within 24-48 h (k = 0.259; p < 0.001) and that 18% (GP) to 35% (EMC) of attendances could be considered “inappropriate” (k = 0.341; p < 0.001). For attendances deemed “appropriate” the admission rate was 47% compared to 0% for “inappropriate” attendees. There was no consensus on 45% of charts (n = 136). Subset analysis by the IRP determined that consensus for appropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 59% and for inappropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 29%. For the Local Panel review (n = 306) consensus on appropriateness ranged from 40 to 76% across ED sites. Conclusions Multidisciplinary clinicians agree that “inappropriate” use of the ED in Ireland is an issue. However, obtaining consensus on appropriateness of attendance is challenging and there was a significant cohort of complex heterogenous presentations where agreement could not be reached by clinicians in this study. This research again demonstrates the complexity of ED crowding, the introduction of evidence-based care pathways targeting avoidable presentations may serve to alleviate the problem in our EDs.

This study aimed to explore the process, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes of older adults who received an interdisciplinary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in the emergency department (ED) over a six-month period after their initial ED attendance. A prospective cohort study recruited older adults aged ≥65 years who presented to the ED of a university teaching hospital in Ireland. Baseline assessment data comprising a battery of demographic variables and validated indices were obtained at the index ED attendance. Telephone interviews were completed with participants at 30- and 180-day follow-up. The primary outcome was incidence of hospital admission following the index ED attendance. Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction, incidence of functional decline, health-related quality of life, incidence of unscheduled ED re-attendance(s), hospital (re)admission(s), nursing home admission, and death. A total of 133 participants (mean age 82.43 years, standard deviation = 6.89 years; 71.4% female) were recruited; 21.8% of the cohort were admitted to hospital following the index ED attendance with a significant decline in function reported at hospital discharge (Z = 2.97, = 0.003). Incidence of 30- and 180-day unscheduled ED re-attendance was 10.5% and 24.8%, respectively. The outcome at the index ED attendance was a significant predictor of adverse outcomes whereby those who were discharged home had significantly lower odds of multiple adverse process outcomes at 30- and 180-day follow-up, and significantly higher function and health-related quality of life at 30-day follow-up. While this study was observational in nature, findings suggest CGA in the ED may improve outcomes by mitigating against the adverse effects of potentially avoidable hospital admissions and focusing on a longitudinal approach to healthcare delivery at the primary-secondary care interface. Future research should be underpinned by an experimental study design to address key limitations in this study.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic created a complex high-risk clinical research environment with clinical research activities significantly impacted. Clinical research stakeholders adapted rapidly to new clinical practices; PPE, infection control policies, all while engaging with a more unwell patient demographic. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of conducting clinical research during COVID-19 with clinical research stakeholders. Methods This qualitative study of semi-structured interviews conducted with clinical research stakeholders in an acute Hospital setting across a variety of disciplines; Consultant Geriatrician, Clinical Research Nurse, Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy. Interviews were fully transcribed prior to reflexive thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to support data management and analysis. Results Three main themes were produced; (1) The challenging COVID-19 clinical research landscape, (2) COVID-19 clinical research communication barriers, and (3) Adaptations and learnings from clinical research during COVID-19. Conclusions This study explored the experiences of conducting clinical research during COVID-19 with clinical research stakeholders examining challenges faced and adaptations required. The findings inform, equip and support clinical research stakeholders in the event of future adverse public health events.

Introduction:Utilization of the Emergency Department (ED) for non-urgent care increases demand for services, therefore reducing avoidable attendance is an important area for intervention in the prevention of ED crowding. This study aims to develop a consensus among clinicians across care settings about the “appropriateness” of attendance at the ED in Ireland.Method:The Better Data, Better Planning study was a multi-center, cross-sectional study investigating factors influencing ED utilization in Ireland. Following ethical approval, data was compiled in patient summary files which were assessed for measures of appropriateness by an academic General Practitioner (GP) and academic Emergency Medicine Consultant (EMC) National Panel. In cases where consensus was not reached charts were assessed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). At each site all files were autonomously assessed by local GP-EMC panels.Results:The National Panel determined that 11% (GP) to 38% (EMC) of n=306 lower acuity presentations could be treated by a GP within 24-48h (k=0.259; p<0.001) and that 18% (GP) to 35% (EMC) of attendances could be considered “inappropriate” (k=0.341; p<0.001). For attendances deemed “appropriate” the admission rate was 47% compared to 0% for “inappropriate” attendees. There was no consensus on 45% of charts (n=136). Subset analysis by the IRP determined that consensus for appropriate attendances ranged from 0-59% and for inappropriate attendances ranged from 0-29%. For the Local Panel review (n=306) consensus on appropriateness ranged from 40-76% across sites.Conclusion:Multidisciplinary clinicians agree that “inappropriate” use of Irish EDs is an issue. However, obtaining consensus on appropriateness of attendance is challenging and there was a significant cohort of complex heterogeneous presentations where agreement could not be reached by clinicians in this study. This research again demonstrates the complexity of ED crowding, the introduction of evidence-based care pathways targeting avoidable presentations may serve to alleviate the problem in our EDs.

Background The collateral damage of SARS-CoV-2 is a serious concern in the Emergency Medicine (EM) community, specifically in relation to delayed care increasing morbidity and mortality in attendances unrelated to COVID-19. The objectives of this study are to describe the profile of patients attending an Irish ED prior to, and during the pandemic, and to investigate the factors influencing ED utilisation in this cohort. Methods This was a cross-sectional study with recruitment at three time-points prior to the onset of COVID-19 in December 2019 ( n  = 47) and February 2020 ( n  = 57) and post-Lockdown 1 in July 2020 ( n  = 70). At each time-point all adults presenting over a 24 h period were eligible for inclusion. Clinical data were collected via electronic records and a questionnaire provided information on demographics, healthcare utilisation, service awareness and factors influencing the decision to attend the ED. Data analysis was performed in SPSS and included descriptive and inferential statistics. Results The demographic and clinical profile of patients across time-points was comparable in terms of age ( p  = 0.904), gender ( p  = 0.584) and presenting complaint ( p  = 0.556). Median length of stay in the ED decreased from 7.25 h (IQR 4.18–11.22) in February to 3.86 h (IQR 0.41–9.14) in July ( p  ≤ 0.005) and differences were observed in disposition ( p  ≤ 0.001). COVID-19 influenced decision to attend the ED for 31% of patients with 9% delaying presentation. Post-lockdown, patients were less likely to attend the ED for reassurance ( p  ≤ 0.005), for a second opinion ( p  ≤ 0.005) or to see a specialist ( p  ≤ 0.05). Conclusions Demographic and clinical presentations of ED patients prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown and during the reopening phase were comparable, however, COVID-19 significantly impacted health-seeking behaviour and operational metrics in the ED at this phase of the pandemic. These findings provide useful information for hospitals with regard to pandemic preparedness and also have wider implications for planning of future health service delivery.

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