BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine risk factors and potential harm associated with medication errors at hospital admission.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Many seniors rely on paid non-familial caregivers to maintain their independence at home. Caregivers often assist with medication reminding and activities of daily living. No prior studies have examined the health literacy levels among paid non-familial caregivers. OBJECTIVES: To determine health literacy levels and the health-related responsibilities of paid non-familial caregivers of seniors. DESIGN: One-on-one face-to-face surveys. The Test for Functional Health Literacy (TOFHLA) was administered to identify health literacy levels. Caregivers were asked to demonstrate their skill in medication use by following directions on pill bottles and sorting medications into pill boxes. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-eight paid unrelated caregivers of seniors recruited at physician offices, caregiver agencies, senior shopping areas, and independent living facilities. RESULTS: Average age of caregivers was 49.5 years, and 86.7% were female. Inadequate health literacy was found in 35.7% of caregivers; 60.2% of all caregivers made errors with the pillbox test medications, showing difficulty in following label directions. Health-related tasks (i.e., medication reminding, sorting, dispensing, and accompanying seniors to physician appointments) were performed by 85.7% of caregivers. The mean age of their seniors was 83.9 years (range 65-99 years), and 82.1% were female. CONCLUSION: Paid non-familial caregivers are essential for many seniors to remain independent and maintain their health. Many caregivers perform health-related duties, but over 1/3 have inadequate health literacy and have difficulties following medication-related instructions. Educating caregivers and ascertaining their health literacy levels prior to assigning health-related tasks may be an important process in providing optimal care to seniors.

for the GEDI-WISE InvestigatorsOlder adults account for a large and growing segment of the emergency department (ED) population. They are often admitted to the hospital for nonurgent conditions such as dementia, impaired functional status, and gait instability. The aims of this geriatric ED innovations (GEDI) project were to develop GEDI nurse liaisons by training ED nurses in geriatric assessment and care coordination skills, describe characteristics of patients that these GEDI nurse liaisons see, and measure the admission rate of these patients. Four ED nurses participated in the GEDI training program, which consisted of 82 hours of clinical rotations in geriatrics and palliative medicine, 82 hours of didactics, and a pilot phase for refinement of the GEDI consultation process. Individuals were eligible for GEDI consultation if they had an Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) score greater than 2 or at ED clinician request. GEDI consultation was available Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. An extensive database was set up to collect clinical outcomes data for all older adults in the ED before and after GEDI implementation. The liaisons underwent training from January through March 2013. From April through August 2013, 408 GEDI consultations were performed in 7,213 total older adults in the ED (5.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.2-6.2%), 2,124 of whom were eligible for GEDI consultation (19.2%, 95% CI = 17.6-20.9%); 34.6% (95% CI = 30.1-39.3%) received social work consultation, 43.9% (95% CI = 39.1-48.7) received pharmacy consultation, and more than 90% received telephone follow-up. The admission rate for GEDI patients was 44.9% (95% CI = 40.1-49.7), compared with 60.0% (95% CI = 58.8-61.2) non-GEDI. ED nurses undergoing a 3-month training program can develop geriatric-specific assessment skills. Implementation of these skills in the ED may be associated with fewer admissions of older adults. 1 The number of older adults who visit an ED has doubled in the last decade and continues to grow rapidly. Older adults presenting to EDs are highly likely to be admitted to the hospital, much more so than their younger counterparts.1 Prevention of hospital admission saves older adults from frequently encountered adverse events, including delirium, functional status impairment, cognitive loss, and nursing home admission. [2][3][4] It is unknown how many older adults are hospitalized for reasons other than acute medical illness, such as functional decline, polypharmacy, progressive dementia, caregiver stress, and unstable living situation. These nonurgent conditions are rarely addressed during a typical ED visit because of lack of resources, patient volume, and the need for rapid turnover of care spaces. 5 The predominant management strategy of emergency physicians at the Feinberg School of Medicine to handle these important but not imminently life-threatening geriatric problems is to recommend hospital admission.The main goal of the Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations through Workforce, Inform...

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.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of standardized, patient-centered label (PCL) instructions to improve comprehension of prescription drug use compared to typical instructions. Methods 500 adult patients recruited from two academic and two community primary care clinics in Chicago, IL and Shreveport, LA were assigned to receive: 1) standard prescription instructions written as times per day (once, twice three times per day) [usual care], 2) PCL instructions that specify explicit timing with standard intervals (morning, noon, evening, bedtime) [PCL], or 3) PCL instructions with a graphic aid to visually depict dose and timing of the medication [PCL + Graphic]. The outcome was correct interpretation of label instructions. Results Instructions with the PCL format were more likely to be correctly interpreted compared to standard instructions (Adjusted Relative Risk (RR) 1.33, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.25 – 1.41). Inclusion of the graphic aid (PCL + Graphic) decreased rates of correct interpretation compared to PCL instructions alone (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 - 0.97). Lower literate patients were better able to interpret PCL instructions (low literacy: RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 – 1.68; p=0.001). Conclusion The PCL approach could improve patients' understanding and use of their medication regimen.

Background Prior studies have documented a high prevalence of patients misunderstanding prescription drug warning labels, placing them at risk for medication error. We evaluated whether the use of ‘enhanced print’ drug warnings could improve patient comprehension beyond a current standard. Methods An evaluation of ‘enhanced print’ warning labels was conducted at two academic and two community health primary care clinics in Chicago, IL and Shreveport, LA. In total, 500 adult patients were consecutively recruited and assigned to receive 1) current standard drug warning labels on prescription containers (standard), 2) drug warnings with text rewritten in plain language (simplified text), or 3) plain language and icons developed with patient feedback (simplified text + icon). The primary outcome was correct interpretation of nine drug warning labels as determined by a blinded panel review of patients’ verbatim responses. Results Overall rates of correct interpretation of drug warnings varied among standard, simplified text, and simplified text + icon labels (80.3%, 90.6%, and 92.1% respectively; p<0.001). Warnings with simplified text and simplified text + icons were more likely to be correctly interpreted compared to standard labels (simplified text – Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 2.64, 95% CI 2.00-3.49; simplified text + icons – AOR 3.26, 95% CI 2.46-4.32). Patients’ ability to correctly interpret labels was not significantly different with the inclusion of icons (simplified text + icons – AOR 1.23, 95% CI 0.90-1.67, p=0.20). Low literacy was also an independent predictor of misinterpretation (AOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.94). Patients with marginal and low literacy were better able to correctly interpret warning labels with simplified text + icons compared to labels with simplified text only (marginal – AOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.24-5.44, p=0.01; low – AOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.39-7.50, p=0.006). Conclusion Simple, explicit language on warning labels can increase patient understanding; the addition of appropriate icons is particularly useful for lower literate adults. Evidence-based standards are needed to promote patient-centered prescription labeling practices.

Social isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes in older adults. We describe a phone call outreach program in which health care professional student volunteers phoned older adults, living in long-term care facilities and the community, at risk of social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversation topics were related to coping, including fears or insecurities, isolation, and sources of support; health; and personal topics such as family and friends, hobbies, and life experiences. Student volunteers felt the calls were impactful both for the students and for the seniors, and call recipients expressed appreciation for receiving the calls and for the physicians who referred them for a call. This phone outreach strategy is easily generalizable and can be adopted by medical schools to leverage students to connect to socially isolated seniors in numerous settings.