• CJEM · Mar 2023

    Multicenter Study

    Agreement and prognostic accuracy of three ED vulnerability screeners: findings from a prospective multi-site cohort study.

    • Fabrice I Mowbray, George Heckman, John P Hirdes, Andrew P Costa, Olivier Beauchet, Patrick Archambault, Debra Eagles, Han Ting Wang, Jeffrey J Perry, Samir K Sinha, Micaela Jantzi, and Paul Hebert.
    • Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
    • CJEM. 2023 Mar 1; 25 (3): 209217209-217.

    ObjectivesTo evaluate the agreement between three emergency department (ED) vulnerability screeners, including the InterRAI ED Screener, ER2, and PRISMA-7. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the discriminative accuracy of screeners in predicting discharge home and extended ED lengths-of-stay (> 24 h).MethodsWe conducted a nested sub-group study using data from a prospective multi-site cohort study evaluating frailty in older ED patients presenting to four Quebec hospitals. Research nurses assessed patients consecutively with the three screeners. We employed Cohen's Kappa to determine agreement, with high-risk cut-offs of three and four for the PRISMA-7, six for the ER2, and five for the interRAI ED Screener. We used logistic regression to evaluate the discriminative accuracy of instruments, testing them in their dichotomous, full, and adjusted forms (adjusting for age, sex, and hospital academic status).ResultsWe evaluated 1855 older ED patients across the four hospital sites. The mean age of our sample was 84 years. Agreement between the interRAI ED Screener and the ER2 was fair (K = 0.37; 95% CI 0.33-0.40); agreement between the PRISMA-7 and ER2 was also fair (K = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.36-0.43). Agreement between interRAI ED Screener and PRISMA-7 was poor (K = 0.19; 95% CI 0.16-0.22). Using a cut-off of four for PRISMA-7 improved agreement with the ER2 (K = 0.55; 95% CI 0.51-0.59) and the ED Screener (K = 0.32; 95% CI 0.2-0.36). When predicting discharge home, the concordance statistics among models were similar in their dichotomous (c = 0.57-0.61), full (c = 0.61-0.64), and adjusted forms (c = 0.63-0.65), and poor for all models when predicting extended length-of-stay.ConclusionED vulnerability scores from the three instruments had a fair agreement and were associated with important patient outcomes. The interRAI ED Screener best identifies older ED patients at greatest risk, while the PRISMA-7 and ER2 are more sensitive instruments.© 2023. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.