Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Study protocol
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

A randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a paramedic-delivered care transitions intervention to reduce emergency department revisits

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 2,
  • 5, 6,
  • 1 and
  • 1, 5, 6Email author
BMC Geriatrics201818:104

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0792-5

  • Received: 6 April 2018
  • Accepted: 16 April 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Approximately 20% of community-dwelling older adults discharged from the emergency department (ED) return to an ED within 30 days, an occurrence partially resulting from poor care transitions. Prior published interventions to improve the ED-to-home transition have either lacked feasibility or effectiveness. The Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) has been validated to decrease rehospitalization among patients transitioning from the hospital to the home but has never been tested for patients transitioning from the ED to the home. Paramedics, traditionally involved only in emergency care, are well-positioned to deliver the CTI, but have never been previously evaluated in this role.

Methods

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial tests whether the paramedic-delivered ED-to-home CTI reduces community-dwelling older adults’ ED revisits in the 30 days after an index visit. We are prospectively recruiting patients aged≥ 60 years at 3 EDs in Rochester, NY and Madison, WI to enroll 2400 patient subjects. Subjects are randomized into control and treatment groups, with the latter receiving the adapted CTI. The intervention consists of the paramedic performing one home visit and up to three follow-up phone calls. During these interactions, the paramedic follows the CTI approach by coaching patients toward their goals, with a focus on their personal health record, medication management, red flags, and primary care follow-up. We follow patient participants for 30 days. All receive a survey during the index ED visit to capture baseline demographic and health information and two telephone-based surveys to assess process objectives and outcomes. We also perform a medical record review. The primary outcome is the odds of ED revisit within 30 days after discharge from the index ED visit.

Discussion

This is the first study to test whether the CTI, applied to the ED-to-home transition and delivered by community paramedics, can decrease the rate at which older adults revisit an ED. Outcomes from this research will help address a major emergency care challenge by supporting older adults in the transition from the ED to home, thereby improving health outcomes for this population and reducing potentially avoidable ED visits.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT02520661. Trial registration date: August 13, 2015.

Keywords

  • Care transitions
  • Community paramedicine
  • Emergency department
  • Older adults

Background

The emergency department (ED) is an important provider of acute medical care to the 43 million older adults (age ≥ 65) residing in the United States [1]. In 2013 alone, older adults made 20.8 million ED visits [2]. However, such figures are misleading, as approximately 20% of ED use among older adults is actually a revisit, in which a discharged patient returns within 30 days of the index visit either for the same complaint or a new unrelated issue [38]. Compared to younger populations, older adults experience a higher frequency of revisits and adverse health outcomes following discharge [9].

Process measures potentially explaining these outcomes point to poor care transitions [10]. Older adults too often leave the ED without adequate understanding of discharge instructions such as how to manage medication changes, follow up with their primary care physician (PCP), and recognize red flags or illness warning signs necessitating immediate attention. Although ED personnel typically provide verbal and written instructions, 78% of patients across all age groups display deficient comprehension, and the discharge process lasts, on average, only 4 min [11, 12].

Efforts to reduce avoidable ED use by older adults have therefore focused on improving their relatively difficult transition from ED to home [1320]. Unfortunately, prior published attempts have encountered problems of program feasibility or effectiveness. For example, the discharge planning and follow-up program of Guttman and colleagues, which required an average of 30 min per patient during the ED stay, improved patient satisfaction but did not show a statistically and clinically significant reduction of ED revisits within 14 days [14].

We seek to improve the ED-to-home transition for community-dwelling older adults by applying a slightly modified Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) to those individuals being discharged home from the ED. The original, hospital-to-home CTI is a validated and widely implemented program. Using the hospital-to-home CTI decreased the 30-day rehospitalization rate from 11.9 to 8.3% (p = 0.048) and the 90-day rehospitalization rate from 22.5 to 16.7% (p = 0.04) in the original validation studies. Furthermore, Coleman and colleagues reported that the mean hospital costs were reduced for CTI patients ($2058 vs. $2546, p = 0.049) at 180 days [2123]. However, the model has not been tested for the ED-to-home transition.

Specifically, the CTI model consists of a structured, 4-week program in which a trained coach, originally an advanced practice nurse, provides one in-person visit in the hospital, one in-person home visit, and up to three phone calls. The coach uses motivational interviewing techniques, behavior modelling, skill transfer, and role playing to enhance patients’ abilities to ensure effective medication management, PCP follow-up, red flag awareness, and maintenance of a personal health record. Coaches do not directly provide services (e.g., make appointments, deliver health care).

By adapting the CTI to the ED-to-home transition, we hope to translate the benefits of this model of care to the ED setting. Furthermore, instead of using advanced practice nurses, we deliver the CTI program through paramedics from the ambulance-based emergency medical services (EMS) system [2426]. These individuals comprise an underused, highly skilled, and highly respected resource present in all communities, and have been increasingly integrated into providing community health interventions, a mission beyond their traditional focus on emergency care.

The primary goal of this study is to test the effectiveness of the paramedic-delivered, modified CTI Program using a randomized controlled trial design. We are evaluating the overall hypothesis that CTI Program participants will have lower odds of ED revisits within 30 days of discharge from the ED compared to control participants. Secondary hypotheses include the propositions that compared to control participants, those receiving the intervention will: 1) have increased patient activation 30 days after discharge from the ED; 2) have shorter time to follow-up with their physician; 3) implement medication changes within 4 days of ED discharge; and 4) have lower healthcare costs within 30 days of discharge from the ED. This protocol description outlines how the CTI Program was modified for this specific patient population and how the study will test these hypotheses.

Methods

This study is a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Rochester approved this study. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02520661, registration date: August 13, 2015) [27, 28]. Any significant protocol modifications will be reported to these IRBs.

Our three specific aims are as follows:
  1. 1.

    Assess the process outcomes of our ED-to-home CTI program for older adults treated in the ED and discharged home, as compared to usual care. The outcomes measured consist of the following: patient’s understanding of ED discharge instructions, implementation of medication changes, and time to follow-up with a primary care physician.

     
  2. 2.

    Determine the effectiveness (e.g., patient activation, ED revisit rate) and cost-effectiveness (e.g., healthcare costs) of our ED-to-home CTI program for older adults treated in the ED and discharged home, as compared to usual care.

     
  3. 3.

    Identify biomedical (e.g., age, comorbidities, impaired cognition, functional limitation) and psychosocial (e.g., social connectedness, anxiety, depression) factors independently associated with repeat ED visits within 30 days of ED discharge among ED-to-home CTI program participants.

     

Designing the program

Modifying the CTI to apply it to the ED-to-home transition necessitated the design and refinement of two structural elements: community paramedic coach training, and the CTI Program.

A pragmatic application of the care transitions intervention program

For our ED-to-home CTI, we sought to make the fewest possible changes to the CTI. Following discussions among the research team members, comprising CTI experts, geriatricians, emergency physicians, EMS physicians, and paramedics, we decided to make two overall changes. These modifications are primarily driven by pragmatic considerations. By retaining other CTI features we pursue a balance between changes necessary for success in the ED setting and preservation of characteristics that have made the CTI successful.

We first determined that the in-person coach visit in the ED would be impractical due to time constraints in that setting. A prolonged discharge process would limit widespread implementation and sustainability since EDs are very busy and need the space for new patients. Therefore, we chose to briefly introduce the program to patients during the ED visit and ensure that the home visit rapidly follows ED discharge, ideally within 24–48 h [29]. During this visit and subsequent follow-up phone calls, the coach would work with the patient to achieve his or her goals through the Four Pillars of the program (Table 1).
Table 1

Model of the modified care transitions intervention: the Four Pillars

Pillar

Medication self-management

Follow-up

Red flags

Patient-centered health record

Goal

Know medications & have system to take them

Schedule appropriate follow-up visits

Know indications that a condition is worsening and how to respond

Understand and manage a personal health record

Home Visit

Discuss importance of knowing medications

Reconcile medications; correct discrepancies

Emphasize importance of follow-up visit; practice and role-pay questions for the PCP

Discuss symptoms and side effects of medications

Explain the personal health record

Review discharge summary; encourage patient to share health record with PCP

Follow-up calls

Answer any remaining medication questions

Advocate for getting an appointment, if needed

Reinforce when/if PCP should be called

Discuss outcome of PCP visit

Second, we chose to deliver the program through paramedics instead of advance practice nurses, as used in the original studies by Coleman and colleagues. We see paramedics as a viable alternative as the ED-to-home CTI program requires robust infrastructure, with home visits needing to be made in urban, suburban, and rural communities, on any day of the week. The broader availability of the ambulance-based emergency medical services (EMS) system fits such demanding requirements, making paramedics optimal agents for program delivery. Figures 1 summarizes the ED-to-home CTI Program.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Emergency Department-to-Home Care Transitions Intervention

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Overview of Research Activities: Participant Flow, Actions, and Measurements

Developing community paramedic coach training

To deliver the CTI, community paramedics must effectively coach and motivate patients. Thus, we provide participating paramedics the necessary training to successfully function as CTI Program coaches. The training consists of readings, video podcasts, and experiences related to the CTI Program, including the training from the Care Transitions Program at the University of Colorado (Denver, CO). Paramedics also receive training in motivational interviewing, geriatrics, the ED discharge process, and community paramedicine. Experiences include CTI coach, emergency physician, and geriatrician shadowing; simulation; and mentored coaching. Because we use paramedics, we do not feel the need to provide medical education other than in aging-specific topics. We have published an evaluation of this training program [30].

Setting

We are performing this study (Fig. 2) at the EDs of three hospitals (two in Rochester, New York and one in Madison, Wisconsin). The three sites are University Hospital at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Strong Memorial Hospital and Highland Hospital at the University of Rochester.

Eligibility

Both patients and their caregivers are eligible to participate in the study. Patient subjects must be age 60 years or older, speak English, reside in Dane County, Wisconsin or Monroe County, New York, and have a primary care physician affiliated with UWHealth or UR Medicine. We limited patients to these two health systems to maximize the quality of data collection from the electronic health record (EHR). Furthermore, patient subjects must live in independent home dwellings, operationalized as not living in skilled nursing facilities or assisted living facilities, have a working telephone, and have the ability to provide informed consent (or have a legally authorized representative provide consent). Finally, patient subjects must be discharged from the ED, including ED observation, within 24 h of arrival, as both of those transition processes are similar. We exclude patients if they have participated in the study previously; are actively enrolled in hospice, a transitions program, or an intensive care management program; are homeless; present for a behavioral health problem; or are severely ill, as defined by an Emergency Severity Index category of 1 [31]. Caregiver subjects must be adults, speak English, have a telephone, and provide informed consent.

Recruitment and enrollment

By monitoring the Epic (Verona, WI) ED track board, research staff identify potentially eligible patients. For each potentially eligible patient, the staff member then queries the patient’s healthcare provider to confirm that the patient will likely be discharged home. If the healthcare provider indicates that this outcome is likely, a staff member then approaches the patient and family/informal caregivers, if any, to confirm eligibility and obtain consent. Caregivers are only consented after the patient subject is consented. At times, this process results in consenting patients later becoming ineligible because they are not discharged home.

Since the study population consists of older adults who may have diminished decisional capacity, we follow a conservative approach and assess each subject’s (patient and caregiver) capacity to provide informed consent. In cases of patients who display a limited capacity to consent, a surrogate (legally appointed representative) can provide consent. We exclude caregivers lacking capacity.

When eligible patients in the ED consent to participate, they receive randomization into either the adapted CTI (intervention group) or usual care (control group). To randomize each participant in a blinded fashion, we provide research staff members with sealed and opaque envelopes, numbered sequentially. Staff members open the envelopes at the completion of the baseline survey at the end of enrollment. Randomization is performed in blocks of 20. The research staff members who enroll the subjects also notify the paramedics as to the scheduled home visit. To maintain blinding, the staff member who enrolls the subject is different than the staff member who performs the telephone follow up. All records regarding the intervention are segregated from the primary study data forms to minimize accidental unblinding of subjects’ study status.

For both groups, we perform research assessments at baseline (in the ED) and again by phone 4 and 30 days after discharge. Figure 2 outlines the research activities.

We took a number of steps to enhance recruitment and participation. First, we provide intervention group patients an appointment card with their community paramedic coach’s picture to address security concerns. Second, we preschedule the follow-up phone calls for patient and caregiver subjects. Third, we collect alternate contact numbers from patients and caregivers, so we can call the alternate number if the subject does not answer the primary phone number. Finally, we have a structured system to obtain follow up, including calls at different times of the day during a short follow up window.

Data collection

All participants regardless of intervention assignment are assessed in the ED to obtain baseline characteristics, and again assessed 4 and 30 days, respectively, after ED discharge via phone calls delivered by research assistants. Caregivers, if enrolled along with the patient, are assessed only in the ED and at 30 days. For the intervention group, coaches complete surveys after the CTI home visits and phone calls to quantify the coaching interactions and the coaches’ perceived value of the interactions.

Finally, we review the patient’s EHR for a 60-day period—30 days prior to and 30 days after the enrollment in the ED. Information extracted include comorbidities, medications, ED care, and ED discharge instructions. Table 2 outlines the study’s measures, the times at which the information is collected, and the source of the data.
Table 2

Study measures: demographic, clinical, covariate, and outcomes

 

Measures

Measures

Timeline

Source/Approach

Demographic

Patient age, gender, marital status, race, ethnicity, education level, primary language, home ownership, living status, home address

Baseline

Patient survey

Patient relationship with PCP

Baseline

Patient survey

Insurance plan

Baseline

Chart review

Clinical

New home services (since ED visit)

Day 4/Day 30

Patient survey

ED chief complaint, final diagnosis (ICD-10), discharge medications, and instructions

Baseline

Chart review

CTI Coaching & Services Forms

 Personal Health Record (PHR)

 Home Visit/PHR Discussion Checklist

 Follow-up Phone Calls Checklist

 Patient Activation Assessment

 Medication Discrepancy Tool

 Care Transitions Measure - 3 [40]

Home visit & coach follow up calls

CTI program records

Covariates

Medical history, including Charlson Comorbidity Index [41]

Baseline

Patient survey

Healthcare: Medications, home services, ED / hospital use

Baseline

Patient survey/ Epic review

Health Status: Short Form-12 [42]

Baseline

Patient survey

Disability Status: ADL [43]

Baseline

Patient survey

Cognition: Short Blessed Test [44, 45]

Baseline

Patient survey

Social Isolation: PROMIS Social isolation short form [46]

Baseline

Patient survey

Depression: PHQ-9 [47]

Baseline

Patient survey

Anxiety: GAD-2 [48]

Baseline

Patient survey

Health literacy

Baseline

Patient survey

Outcomes

Family Caregiver Activation in Transitions [49]

Baseline, Day 30

Caregiver survey

Understanding of red flags

Day 4

Patient survey

Medication changes implemented

Day 4

Patient survey

Follow up with PCP, specialists, urgent care

Day 4, 30

Patient survey / Chart review

Wallston’s Perceived Health Competence Scale (PHCS) [50]

Baseline, Day 30

Patient / Caregiver survey

Healthcare use within 30 days of discharge

Day 30

Patient survey / Chart review

Death within 30 days of discharge (Social Security Death Index)

Day 30

Death Index

Patient experiences of continuity

Day 30

Patient survey

Cost of healthcare and CTI program

Day 30

Health systems/ CTI program records

Program satisfaction

Day 30

Patient / caregiver survey

To maximize data quality, we split the tasks of data collection and quality assurance among different individuals. A research staff member initially records all data for a given patient and caregiver on paper forms, whether the original source comes from a survey or chart review. Later, a different staff member reviews the forms for quality assurance. When possible, a third staff member enters the data into REDCap, a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases.

For research quality assurance purposes, we track a number of metrics. First, the screening of, enrollment of, and application of study instruments to subjects through the study, as presented in Fig. 2, is tracked on a weekly basis. By evaluating the proportion of subjects eligible who are approached to participate in the study, the proportion of subjects consenting to participate, and the proportion of subjects who become ineligible after consent, study processes can be modified to maximize enrollment. Furthermore, querying the reasons for refusing to participate allows identification of consistent themes that can then be addressed during enrollment. We also monitor coaching activity through a services inventory log. By tracking the proportion of subjects who receive the various aspects of the CTI, we can ensure complete delivery of the CTI Program. Finally, we have a rigorous data quality assurance process, using automated and manual checks, to ensure data collected and entered into REDCap are accurate.

Sample size

This study is designed to have adequate power to test the primary hypotheses that the CTI will result in lower odds of repeat ED use within 30 days of discharge compared to the control group. Based on published reports and local data obtained during the grant submission, we expect 20% of the subjects in the control group to have at least 1 repeat ED visit within the 30-day follow-up period. To detect a 5% absolute decrease in the frequency of repeat ED visits with 80% power using a Chi-square test at a two-sided significance level of 5%, we will need 860 subjects per group. We anticipate approximately 25% attrition over the 30-day follow up period. As such, a final sample size of 1200 subjects in each group will be recruited for participation, making a total target of N = 2400. We also calculated the minimum detectable effect size for testing individual biomedical and psychosocial factors predicting repeat ED visit in Aim 4 for the intervention group only. With an expected 15% baseline proportion of repeat ED visit, the sample size of 860 in the intervention group will have 80% power to detect an odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 per standard deviation of a normally distributed predictor. Similarly, 80% power is available to detect an OR ranging from 1.6–1.7 for a binary predictor prevalent in 30–50% of subjects.

Data analysis

We will use multivariate regression models to examine the effect of program participation on outcomes while controlling for patient-level confounding factors. To adjust for potential baseline differences between intervention and control subjects, we will construct a multiple logistic regression model, with repeat ED use (then other outcomes) as the dependent variable, intervention group as the primary independent variable, and any covariates that were found to be imbalanced at baseline in our analyses. We will also account for clustering of study subjects by state and ED enrollment site.

The proposed economic assessment considers the financial costs and benefits of the CTI. We include fixed and variable costs in our analysis while excluding costs associated with the research. We will make economic projections of the program’s financial sustainability and scalability. We will conduct a series of sensitivity analyses by modifying local wages, population case-mix and program effectiveness to estimate boundaries to program’s sustainability and optimal operational conditions.

We will also identify predictors of repeat ED use among intervention group subjects. To evaluate the relationship between biomedical and psychosocial factors with the occurrence of repeat ED visits among intervention subjects, we will conduct bivariate analyses between patient characteristics and the primary outcome measure (repeat ED visits within 30 days).

Data and safety monitoring plan

The Data and Safety Monitoring Plan exists to protect the participating subjects [32]. The Principal Investigator (PI) bears responsibility for ensuring participants’ safety on a daily basis. For this study, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) required an Independent Safety Officer, who acts in an advisory capacity to the NIA to monitor participant safety and data collection and evaluate the progress of the study. The NIA Program Officer and the Independent Safety Monitor review the regularly submitted reports to ensure that important information that may affect the safety and welfare of subjects is collected, recognized, and acted upon quickly while still ensuring the validity and integrity of the data. The Independent Safety Officer has no direct involvement with the study, investigation, or intervention.

Discussion

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial tests whether our adapted CTI program, delivered to community-dwelling older adults who visit the ED for care, decreases revisits within 30 days and, ultimately, costs. It is novel in two different ways. First, the program delivers services through community paramedics, a group rarely used for health promotion or community health activities. Delivery through community paramedics would make this model of care more feasible for widespread adoption, as most communities have paramedics and all communities have ambulance-based care providers with less training (emergency medical technicians). Barriers to program implementation such as lack of nurse or social worker availability would no longer pose problems.

Second, application of the CTI program to the ED-to-home transition, which has a high failure rate, has never been tested. The fact that it is validated in a related setting (hospital-to-home), and that it addresses many of the issues identified as barriers to an effective transition or barriers to accessing care, increases the probability that this intervention will benefit patients [3339]. More importantly, identifying which patients are helped from this intervention, as determined through our final aim, will provide clear empirical evidence as to which subgroups of patients will reap the benefits of this program.

By collecting demographic, clinical, and outcome data from sources such as patient and caregiver surveys and EHR review, we are positioned to perform extensive data analyses that evaluate the CTI for older adult ED patients. Data analysis will primarily use quantitative methods, as those methods are necessary to achieve our primary aims. However, qualitative content analysis of paramedics’ home visit notes will allow us to explore our findings in greater depth.

There are two main limitations in this study. Although implementation will occur at three sites in two cities rather than a single one, the locations are mid-sized communities with similar characteristics. Therefore, the study’s findings may have only limited external validity with respect to rural or urban settings. Moreover, generalizability may be limited regarding other types of participants (e.g., homeless), participants residing at a larger geographic distance from their treating ED, and other types of CTI coaches (e.g., emergency medical technicians).

In conclusion, the implications and contribution of this project for improving health outcomes for older adults may be great. The study brings the powerful methodology of the randomized controlled trial to bear on the difficult problem of the ED-to-home transition among older adults. It combines the strengths of the validated CTI model with the promise of community paramedicine.

Abbreviations

CTI: 

Care transitions intervention

ED: 

Emergency Department

EHR: 

Electronic health record

NIA: 

National Institute on Aging

OR: 

Odds ratio

PCP: 

Primary care physician

PI: 

Principal investigator

Declarations

Funding

Research reported in this publication received support from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AG050504 and the Clinical and Translational Science Award program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences award UL1TR000427. These grants were awarded after undergoing peer review by the NIH. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Availability of data and materials

Human subjects protections preclude us from granting public access to participant-level data. Upon request, access to the full protocol and statistical code will be available after study completion.

Authors’ contributions

RM made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as drafted and revised the manuscript. MMH drafted and revised the manuscript. CMCJ made substantial contributions to the conception and design of this study, as well as revised the manuscript. EHD made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. TVC made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. JTC made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. AJHK made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. ML made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. MNS made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, as well as revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript to be published.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at UW-Madison and the University of Rochester approved this study. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02520661, registration date: August 13, 2015). All subjects provide written informed consent for participation in the study. Those subjects without decisional capacity must have a legally authorize representative present who provides written informed consent, with assent from the patient. Institutional regulations are followed in all circumstances.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The study sponsor does not have any role in the study design, collection, management, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
(2)
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
(3)
Department of Health Services Administration, University of Maryland-College Park, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
(4)
Department of Medicine (Geriatrics), University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
(5)
Department of Medicine (Geriatrics and Gerontology), University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
(6)
VA Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center, Madison, USA

References

  1. U.S. Census Bureau. Selected social characteristics in the United States. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP02&src=pt. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
  2. Rui P, Kang K, Albert M. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2013 emergency department summary tables. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_emergency/2013_ed_web_tables.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
  3. McCusker J, Cardin S, Bellavance F, et al. Return to the emergency department among elders: patterns and predictors. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(3):249–59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Moons P, De Ridder K, Geyskens K, et al. Screening for risk of readmission of patients aged 65 years and above after discharge from the emergency department: predictive value of four instruments. Eur J Emerg Med. 2007;14(6):315–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan GA, Brown A, Croker WD, et al. Risk of admission within 4 weeks of discharge of elderly patients from the emergency department–the DEED study. Age Ageing. 1998;27(6):697–702.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hastings SN, Schmader KE, Sloane RJ, et al. Adverse health outcomes after discharge from the emergency department–incidence and risk factors in a veteran population. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(11):1527–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedmann PD, Jin L, Karrison TG, et al. Early revisit, hospitalization, or death among older persons discharged from the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(2):125–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hastings SN, Oddone EZ, Fillenbaum G, et al. Frequency and predictors of adverse health outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries discharged from the emergency department. Med Care. 2008;46(8):771–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang U, Shah MN, Han JH, et al. Transforming emergency care for older adults. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013;32(12):2116–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. National Transitions of Care Council. Improving transitions of care. 2010. http://www.ntocc.org/WhoWeServe/PolicyMakers/tabid/90/Default.aspx. Accessed 17 Mar 2018.
  11. Engel KG, Heisler M, Smith DM, et al. Patient comprehension of emergency department care and instructions: are patients aware of when they do not understand? Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):454–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Vashi A, Rhodes KV. “Sign right here and you’re good to go”: a content analysis of audiotaped emergency department discharge instructions. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:315–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caplan G, Williams A, Daly B, Abraham K. A randomized, controlled trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and multidisciplinary intervention after discharge of elderly from the emergency department—the DEED II study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(9):1417–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guttman A, Afilalo M, Guttman R, et al. An emergency department-based nurse discharge coordinator for elder patients: does it make a difference? Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(12):1318–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Aminzadeh F, Dalziel WB. Older adults in the emergency department: a systematic review of patterns of use, adverse outcomes, and effectiveness of interventions. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;39(3):238–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. McCusker J, Dendukuri N, Tousignant P, et al. Rapid two-stage emergency department intervention for seniors: impact on continuity of care. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:233–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mion LC, Palmer RM, Meldon SW, et al. Case finding and referral model for emergency department elders: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:57–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Keyes DC, Singal B, Kropf CW, Fisk A. Impact of a new senior emergency department on emergency department recidivism, rate of hospital admission, and rate hospital length of stay. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.10.033.
  19. Graf CE, Giannelli SV, Herrmann FR, et al. Identification of older patients at risk of unplanned readmission after discharge from the emergency department. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;141:w13327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Runciman P, Currie CT, Nicol M, Green L, McKay V. Discharge of elderly people from an accident and emergency department: evaluation of health visitor follow-up. J Adv Nurs. 1996;24:711–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Coleman EA, Berenson RA. Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:533–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, et al. Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the care transitions intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(11):1817–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, et al. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Choi BY, Blumberg C, Williams K. Mobile integrated health care and community paramedicine: an emerging emergency medical services concept. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(3):361–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavares W, Drennan I, Van Diepen K, Abanil M, Kedzierski N, Spearen C. Building capacity in healthcare by reexamining clinical services in paramedicine. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(5):652–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenn M, Zoph O, Weidenaar K, Barraza L, Greco W, Jenkins K, Paode P, Fisher J. State regulation of community paramedicine programs, a national analysis. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;10 1080/10903127.2017.1371260Google Scholar
  27. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin J, Doré C, Parulekar W, Summerskill W, Groves T, Schulz K, Sox H, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleža-Jerić K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Rising KL, Padrez KA, O’Brien M, et al. Return visits to the emergency department: the patient perspective. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(4):377–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lau HS, Hollander MM, Cushman JT, et al. Qualitative evaluation of the coach training within a community paramedicine care transitions intervention. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018:1–8.Google Scholar
  31. Gilboy N, Tanabe P, Travers D, Rosenau AM. Emergency severity index (ESI): a triage tool for emergency department care, version 4. Implementation handbook; 2012. p. 12–0014.Google Scholar
  32. National Institute on Aging. Data and safety monitoring. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dgcg/clinical-research-study-investigators-toolbox/data-and-safety-monitoring. Accessed 17 Mar 2018.
  33. Parry C, Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, Kramer AM. The care transitions intervention: a patient-centered approach to facilitating effective transfers between sites of geriatric care. Home Health Services Quarterly. 2003;22(3):1–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. McGarry BE, Smirnow AM, Wendland M, Bartock B, Cohen E, Chirico J, Beckman H. Reducing hospital readmissions: the effect of a 3 year community-based discharge coaching intervention of elderly and non-elderly adults. Presented at Academy Health. 2014;Google Scholar
  35. Althaus F, Paroz S, Hugli O, et al. Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(1):41–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Flores-Mateo G, Violan-Fors C, Carrillo-Santisteve P, et al. Effectiveness of organizational interventions to reduce emergency department utilization: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35903.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Gruneir A, Silver MJ, Rochon PA. Emergency department use by older adults: a literature review on trends, appropriateness, and consequences of unmet health care needs. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(2):131–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pines JM, Mullins PM, Cooper JK, et al. National trends in emergency department use, care patterns, and quality of care of older adults in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(1):12–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Dove AF, Dave SH. Elderly patients in the accident department and their problems. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6523):807–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, et al. Development and testing of a measure designed to assess the quality of care transitions. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2002;2(2):e02.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, et al. The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1234–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC. Progress in development of ADL. Gerontologist. 1970;10:20–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kawas C, Karagiozis H, Resau L, Corrada M, Brookmeyer R. Reliability of the blessed telephone information-memory-concentration test. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1995;8:238–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H. Validation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry. 1983;140:734–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S12–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Manea L, Gilbody S, McMillan D. Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 2012;184(3):E191–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Wild B, Eckl A, Herzog W, Niehoff D, Lechner S, Maatouk I, Schellberg D, Brenner H, Müller H, Löwe B. Assessing generalized anxiety disorder in elderly people using the GAD-7 and GAD-2 scales: results of a validation study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014;22(10):1029–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Coleman EA, Ground KL, Maul A. The family caregiver activation in transitions (FCAT) tool: a new measure of family caregiver self-efficacy. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety. 2015;41(11):502–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith MS, Wallston KA, Smith CA. The development and validation of the perceived health competence scale. Health Educ Res. 1995;10(1):51–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement