Screening for elder mistreatment in a Swiss emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Swiss medical weekly Pub Date : 2024-06-10 DOI:10.57187/s.3775

Henk B Riedel, Tanguy Espejo, Thomas Dreher-Hummel, Roland Bingisser, Christian H Nickel

{"title":"Screening for elder mistreatment in a Swiss emergency department: a prospective cohort study.","authors":"Henk B Riedel, Tanguy Espejo, Thomas Dreher-Hummel, Roland Bingisser, Christian H Nickel","doi":"10.57187/s.3775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim of the study: The mistreatment of older adults is a global and complex problem with varying prevalence. As there are no data on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in European emergency department populations, we aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Emergency Department Senior Abuse Identification (ED Senior AID) tool for German use, assess the positive screen rate for elder mistreatment with the German version, and compare characteristics of patients who screened positive and negative.Methods: To assess the prevalence of elder mistreatment, we created a German version of the ED Senior AID tool. This tool identifies intentional or negligent actions by a caregiver or trusted person that cause harm or risk to an older adult. Then, the German ED Senior AID tool was applied to all consecutively presenting patients aged ≥65 years at our academic emergency department in the Northwest of Switzerland from 25 April to 30 May 2022. Usability was defined as the percentage of patients with completed assessments using the German ED Senior AID tool.Results: We included 1010 patients aged ≥65 years, of whom 29 (2.9%) screened positive with the ED Senior AID tool. The patients who screened positive were older, more severely cognitively impaired, hospitalised more frequently, and presented with higher frailty scores than those who screened negative. Mortality up to 100 days after presentation was comparable in all patients (p = 0.861), regardless of their screening result. The tool showed good usability, with 73% of assessments completed.Conclusion: This is the first prospective investigation on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in a European emergency department setting. Overall, 2.9% of patients screened positive using a validated screening tool translated into German.Trial registration: This study was registered with the National Institute of Health on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05400707.","PeriodicalId":22111,"journal":{"name":"Swiss medical weekly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss medical weekly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.3775","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim of the study: The mistreatment of older adults is a global and complex problem with varying prevalence. As there are no data on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in European emergency department populations, we aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Emergency Department Senior Abuse Identification (ED Senior AID) tool for German use, assess the positive screen rate for elder mistreatment with the German version, and compare characteristics of patients who screened positive and negative.

Methods: To assess the prevalence of elder mistreatment, we created a German version of the ED Senior AID tool. This tool identifies intentional or negligent actions by a caregiver or trusted person that cause harm or risk to an older adult. Then, the German ED Senior AID tool was applied to all consecutively presenting patients aged ≥65 years at our academic emergency department in the Northwest of Switzerland from 25 April to 30 May 2022. Usability was defined as the percentage of patients with completed assessments using the German ED Senior AID tool.

Results: We included 1010 patients aged ≥65 years, of whom 29 (2.9%) screened positive with the ED Senior AID tool. The patients who screened positive were older, more severely cognitively impaired, hospitalised more frequently, and presented with higher frailty scores than those who screened negative. Mortality up to 100 days after presentation was comparable in all patients (p = 0.861), regardless of their screening result. The tool showed good usability, with 73% of assessments completed.

Conclusion: This is the first prospective investigation on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in a European emergency department setting. Overall, 2.9% of patients screened positive using a validated screening tool translated into German.

Trial registration: This study was registered with the National Institute of Health on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05400707.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在瑞士急诊科筛查虐待老人行为：一项前瞻性队列研究。

研究目的虐待老年人是一个全球性的复杂问题，其发生率各不相同。由于没有关于欧洲急诊科人群中虐待老人发生率的数据，我们旨在翻译急诊科老年虐待识别（ED Senior Abuse Identification，ED Senior AID）工具并进行文化调整，使其适合德国使用，评估德国版本的虐待老人阳性筛查率，并比较阳性和阴性筛查患者的特征：为了评估虐待老人的发生率，我们制作了德文版的 ED Senior AID 工具。该工具可识别护理人员或受信任的人对老年人造成伤害或风险的故意或疏忽行为。然后，我们在 2022 年 4 月 25 日至 5 月 30 日期间对瑞士西北部学术急诊科所有年龄≥65 岁的连续就诊患者使用了德文版急诊科老年人 AID 工具。可用性的定义是使用德国急诊科高级AID工具完成评估的患者比例：我们共纳入了 1010 名年龄≥65 岁的患者，其中有 29 人（2.9%）在使用德国急诊科老年 AID 工具后筛查结果呈阳性。与筛查结果为阴性的患者相比，筛查结果为阳性的患者年龄更大、认知功能受损更严重、住院次数更频繁、虚弱评分更高。无论筛查结果如何，所有患者在发病后 100 天内的死亡率相当（p = 0.861）。该工具显示出良好的可用性，73% 的评估都已完成：这是首次对欧洲急诊科环境中虐待老人现象的发生率进行前瞻性调查。总体而言，使用翻译成德语的有效筛查工具，2.9% 的患者筛查结果呈阳性：本研究已在美国国立卫生研究院的 ClinicalTrials.gov 网站上注册，注册号为 NCT05400707。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Swiss medical weekly 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Swiss Medical Weekly accepts for consideration original and review articles from all fields of medicine. The quality of SMW publications is guaranteed by a consistent policy of rigorous single-blind peer review. All editorial decisions are made by research-active academics.