Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:14:47.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

P053: Characteristics and outcomes of patients seen by transition coordinators in the emergency department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

L.A. Gaudet*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
L.D. Krebs
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
S. Couperthwaite
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
M. Kruhlak
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
N. Loewen
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
E. Zilkalns
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
K. Clarkson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
B.H. Rowe
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
*
*Corresponding author

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Introduction: Emergency Department (ED) Transition Coordinators (TC) have been introduced to many EDs. In Alberta, the EDTC role was designed to evaluate the home needs of senior patients (75 years of age) to enable safe return home after an ED visit, thereby mitigating admissions and return ED visits. The effectiveness of this role at achieving its objectives has received limited evaluation. Methods: TCs assess all ED patients 75 years old, and physicians request TC assessment for patients <75 years. The TC assessment includes completing a Transitional Assessment Referral (TAR) form that collects information on comorbidities, living arrangements, connections to community and homecare services, independence in activities of daily living (ADLs), and referrals, and disposition. Trained research staff extracted data from consecutive TARs for patients presenting during April 2017 into a REDCap database. The proportions of patients seen by TCs who were admitted, had an unplanned return to the ED within the study period, or received a new homecare referral were assessed. Categorical variables are reported as proportions; continuous variables are reported as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. Results: In April 2017, there were 9849 visits to the ED; of these, TCs assessed 478 patients during 500 visits. The mean age was 82 (SD=11.2) and 41% were male; 22 patients presented twice during April 2017. Patients had a median of 2 (IQR: 1, 5) co-morbidities and 40 (8%) patients reported falls in the past 90 days (median=1; IQR: 1, 2). Overall, 144 (29%) patients lived in a care facility, while 204 (41%) lived at home; residence was unclear or not documented for 152 (30%). Patients reported being independent in a median of 9/14 (IQR: 3, 13) ADLs. An existing homecare connection or receipt of homecare services was documented for 185 patients (37%). Finally, 59 (12%) visits included a new or updated homecare referral, while 200 (33%) ED visits ended in admission. Conclusion: Elderly patients seen in the ED assessed by EDTCs are complex, and despite being well connected, they frequently need hospitalization. In a small proportion of cases, additional or new home care resources are required prior to ED discharge; however, few patients returned to the same ED during the one month study period. Given the high proportion of patients assessed, further evaluation of outcomes is warranted.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2018