ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2026
Beyond Triage: Cognitive Profiles and ED-To-Inpatient Costs and Resource Pathways in Older Adults.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Triage: Cognitive Profiles and ED-To-Inpatient Costs and Resource Pathways in Older Adults.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults are frequent users of the Emergency Department (ED), with a significant proportion presenting with pre-existing or acute cognitive impairment. While negative post-ED outcomes associated with cognitive status are well documented, their direct impact on care processes and resource allocation within the hospital remains poorly understood. This study aims to quantify how different cognitive profiles affect costs and care needs for acutely ill older adults.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study at a single, tertiary care hospital. We included patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to the hospital through the ED. They were stratified into three groups based on the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) and the 10-Point Cognitive Screener (10-CS): normal cognition, cognitive impairment without delirium, and delirium. Primary outcome was cost of care. Resource utilization, characterized by the number of medical specialties involved, geriatric consultation, type of inpatient bed allocated from the ED, time to hospitalization, and patient satisfaction, were explored as secondary outcomes. Multiple regression models were used to assess associations, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, clinical severity, and geriatric vulnerability.
resultsThe sample comprised 824 patients: 429 (52.1%) with normal cognition, 165 (20.0%) with delirium, and 230 (27.9%) with cognitive impairment without delirium. Clinical severity, but not cognitive status, was independently associated with costs (B = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.27). Delirium was independently associated with allocation to high-complexity bed and receiving a geriatric consultation. Cognitive impairment was independently associated with a greater number of specialties involved.
conclusionsClinical severity showed the strongest association with costs. In contrast, cognitive profiles were independently associated with the care pathway and complexity, with delirium linked to higher-acuity allocation and preexisting cognitive impairment without delirium to broader multidisciplinary involvement. Recognizing these distinct cognitive profiles is fundamental for anticipating care demands and optimizing resource allocation for this vulnerable population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.