Background Older adult delirium is often unrecognized in the emergency department (ED), yet the most compelling research questions to overcome knowledge‐to‐practice deficits remain undefined. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network was organized to identify and prioritize delirium clinical questions. Methods GEAR identified and engaged 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders including emergency physicians, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patient advocates. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews, clinical questions were derived, medical librarian electronic searches were conducted, and applicable research evidence was synthesized for ED delirium detection, prevention, and management. The scoping review served as the foundation for a consensus conference to identify the highest priority research foci. Results In the scoping review, 27 delirium detection “instruments” were described in 48 ED studies and used variable criterion standards with the result of delirium prevalence ranging from 6% to 38%. Clinician gestalt was the most common “instrument” evaluated with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 81% and specificity from 65% to 100%. For delirium management, 15 relevant studies were identified, including one randomized controlled trial. Some intervention studies targeted clinicians via education and others used clinical pathways. Three medications were evaluated to reduce or prevent ED delirium. No intervention consistently prevented or treated delirium. After reviewing the scoping review results, the GEAR stakeholders identified ED delirium prevention interventions not reliant on additional nurse or physician effort as the highest priority research. Conclusions Transdisciplinary stakeholders prioritize ED delirium prevention studies that are not reliant on health care worker tasks instead of alternative research directions such as defining etiologic delirium phenotypes to target prevention or intervention strategies.
Marital strain confers risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), perhaps though cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) to stressful marital interactions. CVR to marital stressors may differ between middle-age and older adults, and types of marital interactions that evoke CVR may also differ across these age groups, as relationship contexts and stressors differ with age. We examined cardiovascular responses to a marital conflict discussion and collaborative problem solving in 300 middle-aged and older married couples. Marital conflict evoked greater increases in blood pressure, cardiac output and cardiac sympathetic activation than did collaboration. Older couples displayed smaller heart rate responses to conflict than did middle-aged couples, but larger blood pressure responses to collaboration–especially older men. These effects were maintained during a post-task recovery period. Women did not display greater CVR than men on any measure or in either interaction context, though they did display greater parasympathetic withdrawal. CVR to marital conflict could contribute to the association of marital strain with CVD for middle-aged and older men and women, but other age-related marital contexts (e.g., collaboration among older couples) may also contribute to this mechanism.
The study identified coupled profiles of successful aging in middle-aged (n = 139; wives, M = 43.8 years old; husbands, M = 45.6 years old) and older adult married couples (n = 148; wives, M = 62.0 years old; husbands, M = 64.4 years old). Latent profile analysis was applied to variables reflecting the domains of cognition, physical health, personality, and social support. A 2-profile solution and a 4-profile solution were interpreted. Both solutions indicated that a large group of couples scored favorably across domains of successful aging. A small group of largely middle-aged couples who were experiencing extreme marital distress was identified. Unevenness across domains was identified, in that some groups involved a disassociation between marital satisfaction and health outcomes. Spouses were substantially similar in the pattern of their profile of aging. Older adults were not always associated with less favorable profiles. Profiles of successful aging did discriminate on external measures of well-being. The results point to the value of a multidimensional notion of successful aging in couples across the life span.
OBJECTIVESPublished literature on national emergency department (ED) revisit rates among older adults with dementia is sparse, despite anecdotal evidence of higher ED utilization. Thus we evaluated the odds ratio (OR) of 30‐day ED revisits among older adults with dementia using a nationally representative sample.DESIGNWe assessed the frequency of claims associated with a 30‐day ED revisit among Medicare beneficiaries with and without a dementia diagnosis before or at index ED visit. We used a logistic regression model controlling for dementia, age, sex, race, region, Medicaid status, transfer to a skilled nursing facility after ED, primary care physician use 12 months before index, and comorbidity.SETTINGA nationally representative sample of claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who maintained continuous fee‐for‐service enrollment during 2015 and 2016. Only outpatient claims associated with an ED visit between January 2016 and November 2016 were included as a qualifying index encounter.PARTICIPANTSWe identified 240 249 patients without dementia and 54 622 patients for whom a dementia code was recorded in the year before the index encounter in 2016.RESULTSOur results indicate a significant difference in unadjusted 30‐day ED revisit rates among those with an ED dementia diagnoses (22.0%) compared with those without (13.9%). Our adjusted results indicated that dementia is a significant predictor of 30‐day ED revisits (P < .0001). Those with a dementia diagnosis at or before the index ED visit were more likely to have experienced an ED revisit within 30 days (OR = 1.27; 95% confidence interval = 1.24‐1.31).CONCLUSIONDementia diagnoses were a significant predictor of 30‐day ED revisits. Further research should assess potential reasons why dementia is associated with markedly higher revisit rates, as well as opportunities to manage and transition dementia patients from the ED back to the community more effectively. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2254–2259, 2019
This study examined whether perceived coping effectiveness (PCE) was associated with better diabetes management and was higher when adolescents' dyadic coping was matched to shared stress appraisals. There were 252 adolescents with Type 1 diabetes who completed stress and coping interviews where they appraised mothers' and fathers' involvement in stress ownership (mine, indirectly shared, directly shared with parent), in coping (uninvolved, supportive, collaborative, or controlling), and rated their effectiveness in coping. Adolescents completed assessments of depressive symptoms (Children's Depression Inventory), self-care behaviors (Self-Care Inventory), and efficacy of disease management (Diabetes Self-Efficacy). Glycosylated hemoglobin levels were obtained from medical records. Higher PCE was associated with fewer depressive symptoms, self-care behaviors, and efficacy across age and, more strongly for older adolescents' metabolic control. Appraisals of support or collaboration from parents were more frequent when stressors were appraised as shared. PCE was enhanced when dyadic coping with mothers (but not fathers) was consistent with stress appraisals (e.g., shared stressors together with collaborative coping). Stress and coping is embedded within a relational context and this context is useful in understanding the coping effectiveness of adolescents.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.