4.5 Article

Predictive validity of the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) screening tool in elderly patients presenting to two Italian Emergency Departments

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 69-75

出版社

EDITRICE KURTIS S R L
DOI: 10.1007/BF03324901

关键词

Aged; emergency department; geriatric assessment; outcome; predictive validity; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Elderly patients presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) have complex health problems and often undergo adverse outcomes after an ED visit. In Canadian ED, the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) is useful in screening for these aspects. This study evaluated the predictive validity of ISAR for elderly patients presenting to Italian ED. Methods: Prospective observational study of a cohort of 200 elderly patients presenting to two urban ED in Ancona (Italy), Identifiers and triage, clinical and social data were collected, and the ISAR was administered. The following single outcomes were considered: early (30-day) and late (6-month) ED revisit, frequent ED return, hospital admission, and functional decline. Composite outcomes were: [1] death, long-term care (LTC) placement, functional decline; [2] the some as [1] plus any ED revisit or hospitalization. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: ISAR was positive for 141 (70.5%) subjects, who had high comorbidity, disability and cognitive impairment. ISAR-positive patients had an OR of 4.77 (95% CI, 2.19-10.42) to undergo composite outcome [1] and of 3.46 (95% CI, 1.68-7.15) to experience composite outcome [2]. ISAR also predicted ED revisit and frequent use, hospitalization and functional decline at 6 months. ISAR was also an independent predictor of 6-month mortality (Hazard Ratio 6.9, 95% CI 1.65-29, p=0.008). Conclusions: ISAR can be used as a screening test to identify Italian elderly ED patients who have an increased 6-month risk of death, LTC placement, functional decline, ED revisit, or hospitalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据