4.5 Article

Emergency department case-finding for high-risk older adults: The Brief Risk Identification for Geriatric Health Tool (BRIGHT)

Journal

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 15, Issue 7, Pages 598-606

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00157.x

Keywords

risk assessment; aged; emergency services; case finding; geriatric assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective was to test the ability of the Brief Risk Identification for Geriatric Health Tool (BRIGHT) to identify older emergency department (ED) patients with functional and physical impairment. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which 139 persons >= 75 years, who presented to an urban New Zealand ED over a 12-week period, completed the 11-item BRIGHT case-finding tool. Then, within 10 days of their index ED visit, 114 persons completed a comprehensive geriatric assessment. A yes response to at least 3 of the 11 BRIGHT items was considered positive. Primary outcome measures were instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), cognitive performance scale (CPS), and activities of daily living (ADL). Results: The BRIGHT-identified IADL deficit (64% prevalence) with a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.79, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.91, p < 0.01); cognitive deficit (35% prevalence) sensitivity of 0.78, specificity of 0.54, and ROC of 0.66 (95% CI = 0.55 to 0.76, p = 0.006); and ADL deficit (29% prevalence) sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.53, and ROC of 0.64 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.75, p = 0.020). Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) for the three outcomes of interest were 3.6, 1.7, and 1.8, respectively. Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.3, 0.4, and 0.3. Conclusions: The 11-item BRIGHT successfully identifies older adults in the ED with decreased function and may be useful in differentiating elder patients in need of comprehensive assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available