Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928799›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2015

Characteristics of older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) and their risk factors for ED readmission based on comprehensive geriatric assessment: a prospective cohort study.

Mieke Deschodt, Els Devriendt, Marc Sabbe, Daniel Knockaert, Peter Deboutte, Steven Boonen, Johan Flamaing, Koen Milisen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mieke DeschodtDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Health Services and Nursing Research, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Mieke.deschodt@kuleuven.be.
Els DevriendtDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Health Services and Nursing Research, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. els.devriendt@med.kuleuven.be.
Marc SabbeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Emergency Medicine, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Marc.sabbe@uzleuven.be.
Daniel KnockaertDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Daniel.knockaert@uzleuven.be.
Peter DeboutteDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Peter.deboutte@uzleuven.be.
Steven BoonenDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. steven.boonen@uzleuven.be.
Johan FlamaingDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Johan.flamaing@uzleuven.be.
Koen MilisenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Health Services and Nursing Research, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/4, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. koen.milisen@med.kuleuven.be.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients aged 75 years and older represent 12% of the overall emergency department (ED) population, and this proportion will increase over the next decades. Many of the discharged patients suffer an unplanned readmission in the immediate and midterm post-discharge period, suggesting under recognition of psychosocial, cognitive and medical problems. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of older patients admitted and discharged from the ED and to determine independent predictors for ED readmission 1 month and 3 months after ED discharge based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).

methodsCohort study in a Belgian university hospital. A CGA, including demographic and medical data (e.g. reason for admission, comorbidity, number of medications), functional (e.g. activities of daily living, falls), mental (i.e. cognition, dementia, delirium), and nutritional status, and pain, was performed in 442 ED patients aged 75 years or older.

resultsPatients discharged from the ED (n = 117, 26.5%) were significantly less dependent for ADL, mobility, shopping and finances compared with hospitalised patients. Hospitalised patients (n = 325, 73.5%) were significantly more at risk for having nutritional problems, had a higher comorbidity index, and a lower cognitive status compared with those discharged. Ninety-seven patients (82.9%) were discharged home from the ED. Of the latter, 18 (18.6%) and 28 patients (28.9%) suffered an ED readmission within 1 and 3 months, respectively. At one month post-discharge, nursing care at home, meals on wheels, and risk for depression; and at 3 months post-discharge previous hospitalisation in the last 3 months, physiotherapy and meals on wheels were found to be independent predictors for ED readmission, respectively.

conclusionsThis study observed a geriatric risk profile in older adults at the ED and a high readmission rate of those discharged, and suggests the potential value of CGA in identifying older patients at high risk for ED readmission.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient ReadmissionActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBelgiumComorbidityDeliriumFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleNutritional StatusPatient Discharge

Identifiers

PMID25928799
PMCPMC4417280
OpenAlexW2033988393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.