Eduard E. Vasilevskis, MD, MPH

Geriatric syndromes are common clinical conditions in older adults that do not fall into specific disease categories. Unlike the traditional definition of a syndrome, geriatric syndrome refers to a condition that is mediated by multiple shared underlying risk factors.[1, 2] Conditions commonly referred to as geriatric syndromes include delirium, cognitive impairment, falls, unintentional weight loss, depressive symptoms, and incontinence. Even though many perceive it as medical misnomer,[3] geriatric syndromes have been shown to negatively impact quality of life and activities of daily living in older adults.[2] They are also associated with adverse outcomes such as increased healthcare utilization, functional decline, and mortality, even after adjusting for age and disease severity.[4, 5, 6] Hospitalized older adults, including those discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)[7, 8] are particularly at high risk for new‐onset or exacerbation of geriatric syndromes and poor outcomes.[7, 9, 10] However, hospital providers seldom assess, manage, or document geriatric syndromes because they are often overshadowed by disease conditions that lead to an acute episode requiring hospitalization (e.g., heart disease).[11]

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of hospital treatment, and it is well‐known that it affects multiple physiologic systems causing side effects apart from the condition they are approved to treat. Given that geriatric syndromes are a result of impairments in multiple organ systems, it is plausible that pharmacotherapy may initiate or worsen these syndromes.[12] Medication‐related problems in older adults are well known. Polypharmacy and adverse drug events (as a result of drug‐drug/disease interactions and changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics) are prevalent in multimorbid elderly patients.[13, 14, 15, 16] The prescribing cascade[17] increases the medication burden and may be a contributing factor for geriatric syndromes in hospitalized patients.[18] For instance, laxatives may be prescribed to counteract constipation caused by anticholinergic drugs.

The American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers list[19, 20] and similar criteria[21] provide excellent resources to identify medications with potentially harmful interactions or adverse effects in older adults. Although these lists include medicines associated with a specific geriatric syndrome, they were not developed to explicitly link medicines across multiple geriatric syndromes, regardless of indication or appropriateness. For example, medications that effect important geriatric syndromes like unintentional weight/appetite loss, depression, and urinary incontinence are not extensively covered. In addition, disease‐appropriate medications (eg, ‐blockers for systolic heart failure), that may be associated with a geriatric syndrome (eg, falls) are not included; however, they may be important to consider for a patient and clinician who are weighing the disease benefits compared to the geriatric syndrome‐related risks. Finally, the AGS 2015 Beers criteria panel mentions the limitation that many medication associations may be excluded because older adults are less represented in clinical trials.[20] Clinicians are currently limited in identifying medications potentially contributing to a broad set of geriatric syndromes in their patients without a specific list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes (MAGS).[20]

In response to this gap, identifying these medications is important and should be a starting point in efforts toward prevention and treatment of geriatric syndromes. The 2 main objectives of this study were to first identify medications that may meaningfully contribute to 6 geriatric syndromes and subsequently describe the frequency of these medications in a population transitioning from acute care to postacute care to highlight the need and potential impact of such a list.

METHODS

This study included 2 phases that aligned with our 2 primary objectives. Phase 1 involved identifying medications associated with 6 geriatric syndromes, and phase 2 included a cross‐sectional analysis of the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients discharged to SNFs.

Phase 1: Development of the MAGS List

Figure 1 depicts the underlying conceptual model and approach that was used in phase 1. The interaction between the patient factors and medication leads to polypharmacy that contributes to geriatric syndromes and additional adverse outcomes. As a starting point for mitigating geriatric syndromes, we used an iterative analytical process to identify a list of medications associated with the following geriatric syndromes that were documented to be highly prevalent in patients discharged to SNFs: cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, unintentional weight and/or appetite loss, urinary incontinence, and depression.[8] To be inclusive and sensitive, our approach differed from traditional systematic reviews, and in fact was meant to bring together much of the established systematic literature about disparate geriatric syndromes in 1 place, because patients often do not experience a geriatric syndrome in isolation, but rather experience multiple geriatric syndromes.[8] The MAGS list had 3 main inclusion criteria (Figure 1): (1) evidence in the published literature (systematic reviews, cohort studies, randomized clinical trials) that the medication is related to the syndrome, (2) expert panel opinion, and (3) drug databases (Lexicomp Online database[22] and/or US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]approved package inserts).[23] We generated an initial list of medications based on these 3 main criteria to identify medications with significant associations to each geriatric syndrome. The list was further expanded and vetted using an iterative review of each medication list as it related to each geriatric syndrome through a series of group meetings focused around each geriatric syndrome. Following further discussion, we obtained agreement among all team members for medications included in the final list. For each geriatric syndrome, we excluded medications from consideration if they were used to treat the same geriatric syndrome (eg, ‐adrenergic blockers used to treat incontinence in men were listed as associated with incontinence only in women). We classified medications according to the Established Pharmacologic Class available at the FDA website. We also compared our final MAGS list with the 2015 AGS Beer's list[20] by identifying medications that were related to the 6 geriatric syndromes. This included Beers[20]‐cited rationale of anticholinergic, extrapyramidal symptoms, orthostatic hypotension (eg, falls), high‐risk adverse central nervous system effects, sedating, cognitive decline (eg, antipsychotics), delirium, falls, fractures, incontinence, and gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting). Specifically, we assessed whether the medications were included as inappropriate by the AGS Beers 2015[20] list and also whether they documented the syndrome association for that medication.

Figure 1

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

An iterative process of evidence review by a multidisciplinary panel resulted in a list of 513 medications associated with 6 common geriatric syndromes. This analysis demonstrated that hospitalized, older patients discharged to SNFs were frequently prescribed MAGS. The rate of prescribing ranged from 100% of patients with a medication associated with falls to 36% for unintentional weight loss. Moreover, an alarming 43% of all medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. For this vulnerable population, the combination of high prevalence of MAGS and high risk of geriatric syndromes emphasize a need to critically review the risks and benefits of MAGS throughout hospitalization and at the time of discharge.

A body of evidence demonstrates that many drugs in a typical older adult regimen have no specific clinical indication, are considered inappropriate, or have uncertain efficacy in the geriatric population.[24, 25, 26] This study builds on the foundational work described in landmark reviews such as the AGS Beers[20] and STOPP/START[21] (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate indicated Treatment) criteria. Both of these tools, however, were specifically designed as screening tools to identify medications considered unsafe for older adults under most circumstances and within specific illness states.[19, 20, 21] They are most often utilized when starting a medication to avoid acute adverse events. In contrast, the MAGS list was developed to be inclusive of medications that are often appropriate for many medical diagnoses but may also contribute to underlying geriatric syndromes that are more chronic in nature. In addition, inclusion of such medicines increases the sensitivity of screening for medications that can be targeted through patient‐centered deprescribing efforts when clinically appropriate.

A major strength of this study is that we bring together evidence across a spectrum of geriatric syndromes commonly experienced by hospitalized elders. In addition to evaluating multiple syndromes, we applied multiple modalities; particularly the use of an iterative review process by a multidisciplinary team of experts and using Lexicomp and FDA insert packages for linking medications to specific geriatric conditions. The inclusion criteria were broadened beyond single sources of evidence in an effort to capture a comprehensive list of medications. As a result, the MAGS list can be implemented as a screening tool for deprescribing interventions and assessing medication appropriateness to address individual or clusters of geriatric syndromes within a patient.

In addition to expanding this knowledge base, clinical relevance of the MAGS list is highlighted by its application to a sample of hospitalized older adults discharged to SNFs, a cohort known to experience geriatric syndromes. In fact, 43% of patients' medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. Importantly, due to the cross‐sectional nature of this study, we cannot be certain if the medication caused or potentiated each of the geriatric syndromes. However, hospitals and SNFs are devoting major resources toward reduction of falls, avoidance of urinary catheter use, and reduction of preventable readmissions. These efforts can be complemented by considering the number of medications associated with falls, urinary incontinence, and overall MAGS burden. The striking prevalence of MAGS demonstrates a rigorous need to weigh the risks and benefits of these medications. Above all, the intent of this study is not to propose that any MAGS be reflexively stopped, but rather that the MAGS list should facilitate a holistic approach to care for the complex older adult. For example, standard therapies such as gabapentin may be appropriate for treating neuralgic pain but may also contribute to falls and urinary incontinence. Thus, alternative pain treatments could be selected in place of gabapentin for a 75‐year old patient who is experiencing recurrent falls and increasing incontinence. Therefore, the MAGS list enables a patient‐provider discussion wherein medications' therapeutic benefits can be weighed against risks posed by specific clusters of geriatric syndromes, potential impact on quality of life, and consistency with goals of care.

This study has some limitations. First, although we examined a broad number of geriatric syndromes, several other geriatric syndromes experienced by hospitalized older adults were not addressed including: fecal incontinence, insomnia, and functional impairment. These syndromes were intentionally excluded from the study a priori due to reasons of feasibility and scope. Second, unlike the Beer's 2015 criteria, the MAGS list does not sub‐classify associations of medications with geriatric syndromes for patients with specific diseases (eg, heart failure). In fact, our MAGS list included medications often indicated in treating these diagnoses. A clinician must work with the patient to weigh the disease‐specific benefits of some medications with the potential effect on geriatric syndrome symptoms and outcomes. Third, the instrument has a very high sensitivity, which was intended to generate an inclusive list of medications that enables providers to weigh risks of geriatric syndromes with the intended indication benefit. The objective is not to use this list as a reflexive tool but rather help clinicians identify a starting point to address geriatric syndromes in their patients to make patient‐centered medication decisions. Although the MAGS list is intentionally large (sensitive), the advent of advanced bioinformatics can enable MAGS to be assessed in the future for both clinical and research purposes. Fourth, FDA insert packages and Lexicomp databases report anything experienced by the patient while on the particular medication, but it might not necessarily imply a causative link. The high use of MAGS and the specific geriatric syndrome may coexist due to the high prevalence and interplay of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and geriatric syndromes in this population. Last, the list was developed by expert panel members predominantly from a single institution, which may introduce bias. Despite these limitations, the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients transitioning from acute to postacute care highlights the utility of the MAGS list in future clinical research and quality improvement endeavors.

In conclusion, the MAGS list provides a comprehensive and sensitive indicator of medications associated with any of 6 geriatric syndromes regardless of medication indication and appropriateness. The MAGS list provides an overall degree of medication burden with respect to geriatric syndromes and a foundation for future research to assess the relationship between the presence of geriatric syndromes and syndrome‐associated medications. The MAGS list is an important first step in summarizing the data that link medications to geriatric syndromes. Future studies are needed to broaden the analysis of MAGS for other common geriatric syndromes and to identify new and emerging medications not present during the time of this analysis. The MAGS list has the potential to facilitate deprescribing efforts needed to combat the epidemic of overprescribing that may be contributing to the burden of geriatric syndromes among older patients.

Geriatric syndromes are common clinical conditions in older adults that do not fall into specific disease categories. Unlike the traditional definition of a syndrome, geriatric syndrome refers to a condition that is mediated by multiple shared underlying risk factors.[1, 2] Conditions commonly referred to as geriatric syndromes include delirium, cognitive impairment, falls, unintentional weight loss, depressive symptoms, and incontinence. Even though many perceive it as medical misnomer,[3] geriatric syndromes have been shown to negatively impact quality of life and activities of daily living in older adults.[2] They are also associated with adverse outcomes such as increased healthcare utilization, functional decline, and mortality, even after adjusting for age and disease severity.[4, 5, 6] Hospitalized older adults, including those discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)[7, 8] are particularly at high risk for new‐onset or exacerbation of geriatric syndromes and poor outcomes.[7, 9, 10] However, hospital providers seldom assess, manage, or document geriatric syndromes because they are often overshadowed by disease conditions that lead to an acute episode requiring hospitalization (e.g., heart disease).[11]

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of hospital treatment, and it is well‐known that it affects multiple physiologic systems causing side effects apart from the condition they are approved to treat. Given that geriatric syndromes are a result of impairments in multiple organ systems, it is plausible that pharmacotherapy may initiate or worsen these syndromes.[12] Medication‐related problems in older adults are well known. Polypharmacy and adverse drug events (as a result of drug‐drug/disease interactions and changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics) are prevalent in multimorbid elderly patients.[13, 14, 15, 16] The prescribing cascade[17] increases the medication burden and may be a contributing factor for geriatric syndromes in hospitalized patients.[18] For instance, laxatives may be prescribed to counteract constipation caused by anticholinergic drugs.

The American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers list[19, 20] and similar criteria[21] provide excellent resources to identify medications with potentially harmful interactions or adverse effects in older adults. Although these lists include medicines associated with a specific geriatric syndrome, they were not developed to explicitly link medicines across multiple geriatric syndromes, regardless of indication or appropriateness. For example, medications that effect important geriatric syndromes like unintentional weight/appetite loss, depression, and urinary incontinence are not extensively covered. In addition, disease‐appropriate medications (eg, ‐blockers for systolic heart failure), that may be associated with a geriatric syndrome (eg, falls) are not included; however, they may be important to consider for a patient and clinician who are weighing the disease benefits compared to the geriatric syndrome‐related risks. Finally, the AGS 2015 Beers criteria panel mentions the limitation that many medication associations may be excluded because older adults are less represented in clinical trials.[20] Clinicians are currently limited in identifying medications potentially contributing to a broad set of geriatric syndromes in their patients without a specific list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes (MAGS).[20]

In response to this gap, identifying these medications is important and should be a starting point in efforts toward prevention and treatment of geriatric syndromes. The 2 main objectives of this study were to first identify medications that may meaningfully contribute to 6 geriatric syndromes and subsequently describe the frequency of these medications in a population transitioning from acute care to postacute care to highlight the need and potential impact of such a list.

METHODS

This study included 2 phases that aligned with our 2 primary objectives. Phase 1 involved identifying medications associated with 6 geriatric syndromes, and phase 2 included a cross‐sectional analysis of the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients discharged to SNFs.

Phase 1: Development of the MAGS List

Figure 1 depicts the underlying conceptual model and approach that was used in phase 1. The interaction between the patient factors and medication leads to polypharmacy that contributes to geriatric syndromes and additional adverse outcomes. As a starting point for mitigating geriatric syndromes, we used an iterative analytical process to identify a list of medications associated with the following geriatric syndromes that were documented to be highly prevalent in patients discharged to SNFs: cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, unintentional weight and/or appetite loss, urinary incontinence, and depression.[8] To be inclusive and sensitive, our approach differed from traditional systematic reviews, and in fact was meant to bring together much of the established systematic literature about disparate geriatric syndromes in 1 place, because patients often do not experience a geriatric syndrome in isolation, but rather experience multiple geriatric syndromes.[8] The MAGS list had 3 main inclusion criteria (Figure 1): (1) evidence in the published literature (systematic reviews, cohort studies, randomized clinical trials) that the medication is related to the syndrome, (2) expert panel opinion, and (3) drug databases (Lexicomp Online database[22] and/or US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]approved package inserts).[23] We generated an initial list of medications based on these 3 main criteria to identify medications with significant associations to each geriatric syndrome. The list was further expanded and vetted using an iterative review of each medication list as it related to each geriatric syndrome through a series of group meetings focused around each geriatric syndrome. Following further discussion, we obtained agreement among all team members for medications included in the final list. For each geriatric syndrome, we excluded medications from consideration if they were used to treat the same geriatric syndrome (eg, ‐adrenergic blockers used to treat incontinence in men were listed as associated with incontinence only in women). We classified medications according to the Established Pharmacologic Class available at the FDA website. We also compared our final MAGS list with the 2015 AGS Beer's list[20] by identifying medications that were related to the 6 geriatric syndromes. This included Beers[20]‐cited rationale of anticholinergic, extrapyramidal symptoms, orthostatic hypotension (eg, falls), high‐risk adverse central nervous system effects, sedating, cognitive decline (eg, antipsychotics), delirium, falls, fractures, incontinence, and gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting). Specifically, we assessed whether the medications were included as inappropriate by the AGS Beers 2015[20] list and also whether they documented the syndrome association for that medication.

Figure 1

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

An iterative process of evidence review by a multidisciplinary panel resulted in a list of 513 medications associated with 6 common geriatric syndromes. This analysis demonstrated that hospitalized, older patients discharged to SNFs were frequently prescribed MAGS. The rate of prescribing ranged from 100% of patients with a medication associated with falls to 36% for unintentional weight loss. Moreover, an alarming 43% of all medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. For this vulnerable population, the combination of high prevalence of MAGS and high risk of geriatric syndromes emphasize a need to critically review the risks and benefits of MAGS throughout hospitalization and at the time of discharge.

A body of evidence demonstrates that many drugs in a typical older adult regimen have no specific clinical indication, are considered inappropriate, or have uncertain efficacy in the geriatric population.[24, 25, 26] This study builds on the foundational work described in landmark reviews such as the AGS Beers[20] and STOPP/START[21] (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate indicated Treatment) criteria. Both of these tools, however, were specifically designed as screening tools to identify medications considered unsafe for older adults under most circumstances and within specific illness states.[19, 20, 21] They are most often utilized when starting a medication to avoid acute adverse events. In contrast, the MAGS list was developed to be inclusive of medications that are often appropriate for many medical diagnoses but may also contribute to underlying geriatric syndromes that are more chronic in nature. In addition, inclusion of such medicines increases the sensitivity of screening for medications that can be targeted through patient‐centered deprescribing efforts when clinically appropriate.

A major strength of this study is that we bring together evidence across a spectrum of geriatric syndromes commonly experienced by hospitalized elders. In addition to evaluating multiple syndromes, we applied multiple modalities; particularly the use of an iterative review process by a multidisciplinary team of experts and using Lexicomp and FDA insert packages for linking medications to specific geriatric conditions. The inclusion criteria were broadened beyond single sources of evidence in an effort to capture a comprehensive list of medications. As a result, the MAGS list can be implemented as a screening tool for deprescribing interventions and assessing medication appropriateness to address individual or clusters of geriatric syndromes within a patient.

In addition to expanding this knowledge base, clinical relevance of the MAGS list is highlighted by its application to a sample of hospitalized older adults discharged to SNFs, a cohort known to experience geriatric syndromes. In fact, 43% of patients' medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. Importantly, due to the cross‐sectional nature of this study, we cannot be certain if the medication caused or potentiated each of the geriatric syndromes. However, hospitals and SNFs are devoting major resources toward reduction of falls, avoidance of urinary catheter use, and reduction of preventable readmissions. These efforts can be complemented by considering the number of medications associated with falls, urinary incontinence, and overall MAGS burden. The striking prevalence of MAGS demonstrates a rigorous need to weigh the risks and benefits of these medications. Above all, the intent of this study is not to propose that any MAGS be reflexively stopped, but rather that the MAGS list should facilitate a holistic approach to care for the complex older adult. For example, standard therapies such as gabapentin may be appropriate for treating neuralgic pain but may also contribute to falls and urinary incontinence. Thus, alternative pain treatments could be selected in place of gabapentin for a 75‐year old patient who is experiencing recurrent falls and increasing incontinence. Therefore, the MAGS list enables a patient‐provider discussion wherein medications' therapeutic benefits can be weighed against risks posed by specific clusters of geriatric syndromes, potential impact on quality of life, and consistency with goals of care.

This study has some limitations. First, although we examined a broad number of geriatric syndromes, several other geriatric syndromes experienced by hospitalized older adults were not addressed including: fecal incontinence, insomnia, and functional impairment. These syndromes were intentionally excluded from the study a priori due to reasons of feasibility and scope. Second, unlike the Beer's 2015 criteria, the MAGS list does not sub‐classify associations of medications with geriatric syndromes for patients with specific diseases (eg, heart failure). In fact, our MAGS list included medications often indicated in treating these diagnoses. A clinician must work with the patient to weigh the disease‐specific benefits of some medications with the potential effect on geriatric syndrome symptoms and outcomes. Third, the instrument has a very high sensitivity, which was intended to generate an inclusive list of medications that enables providers to weigh risks of geriatric syndromes with the intended indication benefit. The objective is not to use this list as a reflexive tool but rather help clinicians identify a starting point to address geriatric syndromes in their patients to make patient‐centered medication decisions. Although the MAGS list is intentionally large (sensitive), the advent of advanced bioinformatics can enable MAGS to be assessed in the future for both clinical and research purposes. Fourth, FDA insert packages and Lexicomp databases report anything experienced by the patient while on the particular medication, but it might not necessarily imply a causative link. The high use of MAGS and the specific geriatric syndrome may coexist due to the high prevalence and interplay of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and geriatric syndromes in this population. Last, the list was developed by expert panel members predominantly from a single institution, which may introduce bias. Despite these limitations, the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients transitioning from acute to postacute care highlights the utility of the MAGS list in future clinical research and quality improvement endeavors.

In conclusion, the MAGS list provides a comprehensive and sensitive indicator of medications associated with any of 6 geriatric syndromes regardless of medication indication and appropriateness. The MAGS list provides an overall degree of medication burden with respect to geriatric syndromes and a foundation for future research to assess the relationship between the presence of geriatric syndromes and syndrome‐associated medications. The MAGS list is an important first step in summarizing the data that link medications to geriatric syndromes. Future studies are needed to broaden the analysis of MAGS for other common geriatric syndromes and to identify new and emerging medications not present during the time of this analysis. The MAGS list has the potential to facilitate deprescribing efforts needed to combat the epidemic of overprescribing that may be contributing to the burden of geriatric syndromes among older patients.

Geriatric syndromes are common clinical conditions in older adults that do not fall into specific disease categories. Unlike the traditional definition of a syndrome, geriatric syndrome refers to a condition that is mediated by multiple shared underlying risk factors.[1, 2] Conditions commonly referred to as geriatric syndromes include delirium, cognitive impairment, falls, unintentional weight loss, depressive symptoms, and incontinence. Even though many perceive it as medical misnomer,[3] geriatric syndromes have been shown to negatively impact quality of life and activities of daily living in older adults.[2] They are also associated with adverse outcomes such as increased healthcare utilization, functional decline, and mortality, even after adjusting for age and disease severity.[4, 5, 6] Hospitalized older adults, including those discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)[7, 8] are particularly at high risk for new‐onset or exacerbation of geriatric syndromes and poor outcomes.[7, 9, 10] However, hospital providers seldom assess, manage, or document geriatric syndromes because they are often overshadowed by disease conditions that lead to an acute episode requiring hospitalization (e.g., heart disease).[11]

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of hospital treatment, and it is well‐known that it affects multiple physiologic systems causing side effects apart from the condition they are approved to treat. Given that geriatric syndromes are a result of impairments in multiple organ systems, it is plausible that pharmacotherapy may initiate or worsen these syndromes.[12] Medication‐related problems in older adults are well known. Polypharmacy and adverse drug events (as a result of drug‐drug/disease interactions and changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics) are prevalent in multimorbid elderly patients.[13, 14, 15, 16] The prescribing cascade[17] increases the medication burden and may be a contributing factor for geriatric syndromes in hospitalized patients.[18] For instance, laxatives may be prescribed to counteract constipation caused by anticholinergic drugs.

The American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers list[19, 20] and similar criteria[21] provide excellent resources to identify medications with potentially harmful interactions or adverse effects in older adults. Although these lists include medicines associated with a specific geriatric syndrome, they were not developed to explicitly link medicines across multiple geriatric syndromes, regardless of indication or appropriateness. For example, medications that effect important geriatric syndromes like unintentional weight/appetite loss, depression, and urinary incontinence are not extensively covered. In addition, disease‐appropriate medications (eg, ‐blockers for systolic heart failure), that may be associated with a geriatric syndrome (eg, falls) are not included; however, they may be important to consider for a patient and clinician who are weighing the disease benefits compared to the geriatric syndrome‐related risks. Finally, the AGS 2015 Beers criteria panel mentions the limitation that many medication associations may be excluded because older adults are less represented in clinical trials.[20] Clinicians are currently limited in identifying medications potentially contributing to a broad set of geriatric syndromes in their patients without a specific list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes (MAGS).[20]

In response to this gap, identifying these medications is important and should be a starting point in efforts toward prevention and treatment of geriatric syndromes. The 2 main objectives of this study were to first identify medications that may meaningfully contribute to 6 geriatric syndromes and subsequently describe the frequency of these medications in a population transitioning from acute care to postacute care to highlight the need and potential impact of such a list.

METHODS

This study included 2 phases that aligned with our 2 primary objectives. Phase 1 involved identifying medications associated with 6 geriatric syndromes, and phase 2 included a cross‐sectional analysis of the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients discharged to SNFs.

Phase 1: Development of the MAGS List

Figure 1 depicts the underlying conceptual model and approach that was used in phase 1. The interaction between the patient factors and medication leads to polypharmacy that contributes to geriatric syndromes and additional adverse outcomes. As a starting point for mitigating geriatric syndromes, we used an iterative analytical process to identify a list of medications associated with the following geriatric syndromes that were documented to be highly prevalent in patients discharged to SNFs: cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, unintentional weight and/or appetite loss, urinary incontinence, and depression.[8] To be inclusive and sensitive, our approach differed from traditional systematic reviews, and in fact was meant to bring together much of the established systematic literature about disparate geriatric syndromes in 1 place, because patients often do not experience a geriatric syndrome in isolation, but rather experience multiple geriatric syndromes.[8] The MAGS list had 3 main inclusion criteria (Figure 1): (1) evidence in the published literature (systematic reviews, cohort studies, randomized clinical trials) that the medication is related to the syndrome, (2) expert panel opinion, and (3) drug databases (Lexicomp Online database[22] and/or US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]approved package inserts).[23] We generated an initial list of medications based on these 3 main criteria to identify medications with significant associations to each geriatric syndrome. The list was further expanded and vetted using an iterative review of each medication list as it related to each geriatric syndrome through a series of group meetings focused around each geriatric syndrome. Following further discussion, we obtained agreement among all team members for medications included in the final list. For each geriatric syndrome, we excluded medications from consideration if they were used to treat the same geriatric syndrome (eg, ‐adrenergic blockers used to treat incontinence in men were listed as associated with incontinence only in women). We classified medications according to the Established Pharmacologic Class available at the FDA website. We also compared our final MAGS list with the 2015 AGS Beer's list[20] by identifying medications that were related to the 6 geriatric syndromes. This included Beers[20]‐cited rationale of anticholinergic, extrapyramidal symptoms, orthostatic hypotension (eg, falls), high‐risk adverse central nervous system effects, sedating, cognitive decline (eg, antipsychotics), delirium, falls, fractures, incontinence, and gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting). Specifically, we assessed whether the medications were included as inappropriate by the AGS Beers 2015[20] list and also whether they documented the syndrome association for that medication.

Figure 1

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

An iterative process of evidence review by a multidisciplinary panel resulted in a list of 513 medications associated with 6 common geriatric syndromes. This analysis demonstrated that hospitalized, older patients discharged to SNFs were frequently prescribed MAGS. The rate of prescribing ranged from 100% of patients with a medication associated with falls to 36% for unintentional weight loss. Moreover, an alarming 43% of all medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. For this vulnerable population, the combination of high prevalence of MAGS and high risk of geriatric syndromes emphasize a need to critically review the risks and benefits of MAGS throughout hospitalization and at the time of discharge.

A body of evidence demonstrates that many drugs in a typical older adult regimen have no specific clinical indication, are considered inappropriate, or have uncertain efficacy in the geriatric population.[24, 25, 26] This study builds on the foundational work described in landmark reviews such as the AGS Beers[20] and STOPP/START[21] (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate indicated Treatment) criteria. Both of these tools, however, were specifically designed as screening tools to identify medications considered unsafe for older adults under most circumstances and within specific illness states.[19, 20, 21] They are most often utilized when starting a medication to avoid acute adverse events. In contrast, the MAGS list was developed to be inclusive of medications that are often appropriate for many medical diagnoses but may also contribute to underlying geriatric syndromes that are more chronic in nature. In addition, inclusion of such medicines increases the sensitivity of screening for medications that can be targeted through patient‐centered deprescribing efforts when clinically appropriate.

A major strength of this study is that we bring together evidence across a spectrum of geriatric syndromes commonly experienced by hospitalized elders. In addition to evaluating multiple syndromes, we applied multiple modalities; particularly the use of an iterative review process by a multidisciplinary team of experts and using Lexicomp and FDA insert packages for linking medications to specific geriatric conditions. The inclusion criteria were broadened beyond single sources of evidence in an effort to capture a comprehensive list of medications. As a result, the MAGS list can be implemented as a screening tool for deprescribing interventions and assessing medication appropriateness to address individual or clusters of geriatric syndromes within a patient.

In addition to expanding this knowledge base, clinical relevance of the MAGS list is highlighted by its application to a sample of hospitalized older adults discharged to SNFs, a cohort known to experience geriatric syndromes. In fact, 43% of patients' medications at hospital discharge were MAGS. Importantly, due to the cross‐sectional nature of this study, we cannot be certain if the medication caused or potentiated each of the geriatric syndromes. However, hospitals and SNFs are devoting major resources toward reduction of falls, avoidance of urinary catheter use, and reduction of preventable readmissions. These efforts can be complemented by considering the number of medications associated with falls, urinary incontinence, and overall MAGS burden. The striking prevalence of MAGS demonstrates a rigorous need to weigh the risks and benefits of these medications. Above all, the intent of this study is not to propose that any MAGS be reflexively stopped, but rather that the MAGS list should facilitate a holistic approach to care for the complex older adult. For example, standard therapies such as gabapentin may be appropriate for treating neuralgic pain but may also contribute to falls and urinary incontinence. Thus, alternative pain treatments could be selected in place of gabapentin for a 75‐year old patient who is experiencing recurrent falls and increasing incontinence. Therefore, the MAGS list enables a patient‐provider discussion wherein medications' therapeutic benefits can be weighed against risks posed by specific clusters of geriatric syndromes, potential impact on quality of life, and consistency with goals of care.

This study has some limitations. First, although we examined a broad number of geriatric syndromes, several other geriatric syndromes experienced by hospitalized older adults were not addressed including: fecal incontinence, insomnia, and functional impairment. These syndromes were intentionally excluded from the study a priori due to reasons of feasibility and scope. Second, unlike the Beer's 2015 criteria, the MAGS list does not sub‐classify associations of medications with geriatric syndromes for patients with specific diseases (eg, heart failure). In fact, our MAGS list included medications often indicated in treating these diagnoses. A clinician must work with the patient to weigh the disease‐specific benefits of some medications with the potential effect on geriatric syndrome symptoms and outcomes. Third, the instrument has a very high sensitivity, which was intended to generate an inclusive list of medications that enables providers to weigh risks of geriatric syndromes with the intended indication benefit. The objective is not to use this list as a reflexive tool but rather help clinicians identify a starting point to address geriatric syndromes in their patients to make patient‐centered medication decisions. Although the MAGS list is intentionally large (sensitive), the advent of advanced bioinformatics can enable MAGS to be assessed in the future for both clinical and research purposes. Fourth, FDA insert packages and Lexicomp databases report anything experienced by the patient while on the particular medication, but it might not necessarily imply a causative link. The high use of MAGS and the specific geriatric syndrome may coexist due to the high prevalence and interplay of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and geriatric syndromes in this population. Last, the list was developed by expert panel members predominantly from a single institution, which may introduce bias. Despite these limitations, the prevalence of these medications in a sample of patients transitioning from acute to postacute care highlights the utility of the MAGS list in future clinical research and quality improvement endeavors.

In conclusion, the MAGS list provides a comprehensive and sensitive indicator of medications associated with any of 6 geriatric syndromes regardless of medication indication and appropriateness. The MAGS list provides an overall degree of medication burden with respect to geriatric syndromes and a foundation for future research to assess the relationship between the presence of geriatric syndromes and syndrome‐associated medications. The MAGS list is an important first step in summarizing the data that link medications to geriatric syndromes. Future studies are needed to broaden the analysis of MAGS for other common geriatric syndromes and to identify new and emerging medications not present during the time of this analysis. The MAGS list has the potential to facilitate deprescribing efforts needed to combat the epidemic of overprescribing that may be contributing to the burden of geriatric syndromes among older patients.

In recent years, US hospitals have focused on decreasing readmission rates, incented by reimbursement penalties to hospitals having excessive readmissions.[1] Gaps in the quality of care provided during transitions likely contribute to preventable readmissions.[2] One compelling quality assessment in this setting is measuring patients' discharge preparedness, using key dimensions such as understanding their instructions for medication use and follow‐up. Patient‐reported preparedness for discharge may also be useful to identify risk of readmission.

Several patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge exist, and herein we describe 2 measures of interest. First, the Brief‐PREPARED (B‐PREPARED) measure was derived from the longer PREPARED instrument (Prescriptions, Ready to re‐enter community, Education, Placement, Assurance of safety, Realistic expectations, Empowerment, Directed to appropriate services), which reflects the patient's perceived needs at discharge. In previous research, the B‐PREPARED measure predicted emergency department (ED) visits for patients who had been recently hospitalized and had a high risk for readmission.[3] Second, the Care Transitions Measure‐3 (CTM‐3) was developed by Coleman et al. as a patient‐reported measure to discriminate between patients who were more likely to have an ED visit or readmission from those who did not. CTM‐3 has also been used to evaluate hospitals' level of care coordination and for public reporting purposes.[4, 5, 6] It has been endorsed by the National Quality Forum and incorporated into the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey provided to samples of recently hospitalized US patients.[7] However, recent evidence from an inpatient cohort of cardiovascular patients suggests the CTM‐3 overinflates care transition scores compared to the longer 15‐item CTM. In that cohort, the CTM‐3 could not differentiate between patients who did or did not have repeat ED visits or readmission.[8] Thus far, the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures have not been compared to one another directly.

In addition to the development of patient‐reported measures, hospitals increasingly employ administrative algorithms to predict likelihood of readmission.[9] A commonly used measure is the LACE index (Length of stay, Acuity, Comorbidity, and Emergency department use).[10] The LACE index predicted readmission and death within 30 days of discharge in a large cohort in Canada. In 2 retrospective studies of recently hospitalized patients in the United States, the LACE index's ability to discriminate between patients readmitted or not ranged from slightly better than chance to moderate (C statistic 0.56‐0.77).[11, 12]

It is unknown whether adding patient‐reported preparedness measures to commonly used readmission prediction scores increases the ability to predict readmission risk. We sought to determine whether the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures were predictive of readmission or death, as compared to the LACE index, in a large cohort of cardiovascular patients. In addition, we sought to determine the additional predictive and discriminative ability gained from administering the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures, while adjusting for the LACE index and other clinical factors. We hypothesized that: (1) higher preparedness scores on both measures would predict lower risk of readmission or death in a cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiac diagnoses; and (2) because it provides more specific and actionable information, the B‐PREPARED would discriminate readmission more accurately than CTM‐3, after controlling for clinical factors.

METHODS

RESULTS

From the cohort of 1239 patients (Figure 1), 64%, 28%, and 7% of patients were hospitalized with ACS, ADHF, or both, respectively (Table 1). Nearly 45% of patients were female, 83% were white, and the median age was 61 years (IQR 5269). The median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 25). The median preparedness scores were high for both B‐PREPARED (21, IQR 1822) and CTM‐3 (77.8, IQR 66.7100). A total of 211 (17%) and 380 (31%) were readmitted or died within 30 and 90 days, respectively. The completion rate for the postdischarge phone calls was 88%.

Figure 1

B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 were moderately correlated with one another (Spearman's = 0.40, P < 0.001). In bivariate analyses (Table 1), the association between B‐PREPARED and readmission or death was significant at 90 days (P = 0.030) but not 30 days. The CTM‐3 showed no significant association with readmission or death at either time point. The LACE score was significantly associated with rates of readmission at 30 and 90 days (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, we compared 2 patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge, their association with time to death or readmission at 30 and 90 days, and their ability to discriminate patients who were or were not readmitted or died. Higher preparedness as measured by higher B‐PREPARED scores was associated with lower risk of readmission or death at 30 and 90 days after discharge in unadjusted models, and at 90 days in adjusted models. CTM‐3 was not associated with the outcome in any analyses. Lastly, the individual preparedness measures were not as strongly associated with readmission or death compared to the LACE readmission index alone.

How do our findings relate to the measurement of care transition quality? We consider 2 scenarios. First, if hospitals utilize the LACE index to predict readmission, then neither self‐reported measure of preparedness adds meaningfully to its predictive ability. However, hospital management may still find the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 useful as a means to direct care transition quality‐improvement efforts. These measures can instruct hospitals as to what areas their patients express the greatest difficulty or lack of preparedness and closely attend to patient needs with appropriate resources. Furthermore, the patient's perception of being prepared for discharge may be different than their actual preparedness. Their perceived preparedness may be affected by cognitive impairment, dissatisfaction with medical care, depression, lower health‐related quality of life, and lower educational attainment as demonstrated by Lau et al.[16] If a patient's perception of preparedness were low, it would behoove the clinician to investigate these other issues and address those that are mutable. Additionally, perceived preparedness may not correlate with the patient's understanding of their medical conditions, so it is imperative that clinicians provide prospective guidance about their probable postdischarge trajectory. If hospitals are not utilizing the LACE index, then perhaps using the B‐PREPARED, but not the CTM‐3, may be beneficial for predicting readmission.

How do our results fit with evidence from prior studies, and what do they mean in the context of care transitions quality? First, in the psychometric evaluation of the B‐PREPARED measure in a cohort of recently hospitalized patients, the mean score was 17.3, lower than the median of 21 in our cohort.[3] Numerous studies have utilized the CTM‐3 and the longer‐version CTM‐15. Though we cannot make a direct comparison, the median in our cohort (77.8) was on par with the means from other studies, which ranged from 63 to 82.[5, 17, 18, 19] Several studies also note ceiling effects with clusters of scores at the upper end of the scale, as did we. We conjecture that our cohort's preparedness scores may be higher because our institution has made concerted efforts to improve the discharge education for cardiovascular patients.

In a comparable patient population, the TRACE‐CORE (Transitions, Risks, and Actions in Coronary Events Center for Outcomes Research and Education) study is a cohort of more than 2200 patients with ACS who were administered the CTM‐15 within 1 month of discharge.[8] In that study, the median CTM‐15 score was 66.6, which is lower than our cohort. With regard to the predictive ability of the CTM‐3, they note that CTM‐3 scores did not differentiate between patients who were or were not readmitted or had emergency department visits. Our results support their concern that the CTM‐15 and by extension the CTM‐3, though adopted widely as part of HCAHPS, may not have sufficient ability to discriminate differences in patient outcomes or the quality of care transitions.

More recently, patient‐reported preparedness for discharge was assessed in a prospective cohort in Canada.[16] Lau et al. administered a single‐item measure of readiness at the time of discharge to general medicine patients, and found that lower readiness scores were also not associated with readmission or death at 30 days, when adjusted for the LACE index as we did.

We must acknowledge the limitations of our findings. First, our sample of recently discharged patients with cardiovascular disease is different than the community‐dwelling, underserved Americans hospitalized in the prior year, which served as the sample for reducing the CTM‐15 to 3 items.[5] This fact may explain why we did not find the CTM‐3 to be associated with readmission in our sample. Second, our analyses did not include extensive adjustment for patient‐related factors. Rather, our intention was to see how well the preparedness measures performed independently and compare their abilities to predict readmission, which is particularly relevant for clinicians who may not have all possible covariates in predicting readmission. Finally, because we limited the analyses to the patients who completed the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures (88% completion rate), we may not have data for: (1) very ill patients, who had a higher risk of readmission and least prepared, and were not able to answer the postdischarge phone call; and (2) very functional patients, who had a lower risk of readmission and were too busy to answer the postdischarge phone call. This may have limited the extremes in the spectrum of our sample.

Importantly, our study has several strengths. We report on the largest sample to date with results of both B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3. Moreover, we examined how these measures compared to a widely used readmission prediction tool, the LACE index. We had very high postdischarge phone call completion rates in the week following discharge. Furthermore, we had thorough assessment of readmission data through patient report, electronic medical record documentation, and collection of outside medical records.

Further research is needed to elucidate: (1) the ideal administration time of the patient‐reported measures of preparedness (before or after discharge), and (2) the challenges to the implementation of measures in healthcare systems. Remaining research questions center on the tradeoffs and barriers to implementing a longer measure like the 11‐item B‐PREPARED compared to a shorter measure like the CTM‐3. We do not know whether longer measures preclude their use by busy clinicians, though it provides more specific information about what patients feel they need at hospital discharge. Additionally, studies need to demonstrate the mutability of preparedness and the response of measures to interventions designed to improve the hospital discharge process.

In our sample of recently hospitalized cardiovascular patients, there was a statistically significant association between patient‐reported preparedness for discharged, as measured by B‐PREPARED, and readmissions/death at 30 and 90 days, but the magnitude of the association was very small. Furthermore, another patient‐reported preparedness measure, CTM‐3, was not associated with readmissions or death at either 30 or 90 days. Lastly, neither measure discriminated well between patients who were readmitted or not, and neither measure added meaningfully to the LACE index in terms of predicting 30‐ or 90‐day readmissions.

In recent years, US hospitals have focused on decreasing readmission rates, incented by reimbursement penalties to hospitals having excessive readmissions.[1] Gaps in the quality of care provided during transitions likely contribute to preventable readmissions.[2] One compelling quality assessment in this setting is measuring patients' discharge preparedness, using key dimensions such as understanding their instructions for medication use and follow‐up. Patient‐reported preparedness for discharge may also be useful to identify risk of readmission.

Several patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge exist, and herein we describe 2 measures of interest. First, the Brief‐PREPARED (B‐PREPARED) measure was derived from the longer PREPARED instrument (Prescriptions, Ready to re‐enter community, Education, Placement, Assurance of safety, Realistic expectations, Empowerment, Directed to appropriate services), which reflects the patient's perceived needs at discharge. In previous research, the B‐PREPARED measure predicted emergency department (ED) visits for patients who had been recently hospitalized and had a high risk for readmission.[3] Second, the Care Transitions Measure‐3 (CTM‐3) was developed by Coleman et al. as a patient‐reported measure to discriminate between patients who were more likely to have an ED visit or readmission from those who did not. CTM‐3 has also been used to evaluate hospitals' level of care coordination and for public reporting purposes.[4, 5, 6] It has been endorsed by the National Quality Forum and incorporated into the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey provided to samples of recently hospitalized US patients.[7] However, recent evidence from an inpatient cohort of cardiovascular patients suggests the CTM‐3 overinflates care transition scores compared to the longer 15‐item CTM. In that cohort, the CTM‐3 could not differentiate between patients who did or did not have repeat ED visits or readmission.[8] Thus far, the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures have not been compared to one another directly.

In addition to the development of patient‐reported measures, hospitals increasingly employ administrative algorithms to predict likelihood of readmission.[9] A commonly used measure is the LACE index (Length of stay, Acuity, Comorbidity, and Emergency department use).[10] The LACE index predicted readmission and death within 30 days of discharge in a large cohort in Canada. In 2 retrospective studies of recently hospitalized patients in the United States, the LACE index's ability to discriminate between patients readmitted or not ranged from slightly better than chance to moderate (C statistic 0.56‐0.77).[11, 12]

It is unknown whether adding patient‐reported preparedness measures to commonly used readmission prediction scores increases the ability to predict readmission risk. We sought to determine whether the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures were predictive of readmission or death, as compared to the LACE index, in a large cohort of cardiovascular patients. In addition, we sought to determine the additional predictive and discriminative ability gained from administering the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures, while adjusting for the LACE index and other clinical factors. We hypothesized that: (1) higher preparedness scores on both measures would predict lower risk of readmission or death in a cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiac diagnoses; and (2) because it provides more specific and actionable information, the B‐PREPARED would discriminate readmission more accurately than CTM‐3, after controlling for clinical factors.

METHODS

RESULTS

From the cohort of 1239 patients (Figure 1), 64%, 28%, and 7% of patients were hospitalized with ACS, ADHF, or both, respectively (Table 1). Nearly 45% of patients were female, 83% were white, and the median age was 61 years (IQR 5269). The median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 25). The median preparedness scores were high for both B‐PREPARED (21, IQR 1822) and CTM‐3 (77.8, IQR 66.7100). A total of 211 (17%) and 380 (31%) were readmitted or died within 30 and 90 days, respectively. The completion rate for the postdischarge phone calls was 88%.

Figure 1

B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 were moderately correlated with one another (Spearman's = 0.40, P < 0.001). In bivariate analyses (Table 1), the association between B‐PREPARED and readmission or death was significant at 90 days (P = 0.030) but not 30 days. The CTM‐3 showed no significant association with readmission or death at either time point. The LACE score was significantly associated with rates of readmission at 30 and 90 days (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, we compared 2 patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge, their association with time to death or readmission at 30 and 90 days, and their ability to discriminate patients who were or were not readmitted or died. Higher preparedness as measured by higher B‐PREPARED scores was associated with lower risk of readmission or death at 30 and 90 days after discharge in unadjusted models, and at 90 days in adjusted models. CTM‐3 was not associated with the outcome in any analyses. Lastly, the individual preparedness measures were not as strongly associated with readmission or death compared to the LACE readmission index alone.

How do our findings relate to the measurement of care transition quality? We consider 2 scenarios. First, if hospitals utilize the LACE index to predict readmission, then neither self‐reported measure of preparedness adds meaningfully to its predictive ability. However, hospital management may still find the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 useful as a means to direct care transition quality‐improvement efforts. These measures can instruct hospitals as to what areas their patients express the greatest difficulty or lack of preparedness and closely attend to patient needs with appropriate resources. Furthermore, the patient's perception of being prepared for discharge may be different than their actual preparedness. Their perceived preparedness may be affected by cognitive impairment, dissatisfaction with medical care, depression, lower health‐related quality of life, and lower educational attainment as demonstrated by Lau et al.[16] If a patient's perception of preparedness were low, it would behoove the clinician to investigate these other issues and address those that are mutable. Additionally, perceived preparedness may not correlate with the patient's understanding of their medical conditions, so it is imperative that clinicians provide prospective guidance about their probable postdischarge trajectory. If hospitals are not utilizing the LACE index, then perhaps using the B‐PREPARED, but not the CTM‐3, may be beneficial for predicting readmission.

How do our results fit with evidence from prior studies, and what do they mean in the context of care transitions quality? First, in the psychometric evaluation of the B‐PREPARED measure in a cohort of recently hospitalized patients, the mean score was 17.3, lower than the median of 21 in our cohort.[3] Numerous studies have utilized the CTM‐3 and the longer‐version CTM‐15. Though we cannot make a direct comparison, the median in our cohort (77.8) was on par with the means from other studies, which ranged from 63 to 82.[5, 17, 18, 19] Several studies also note ceiling effects with clusters of scores at the upper end of the scale, as did we. We conjecture that our cohort's preparedness scores may be higher because our institution has made concerted efforts to improve the discharge education for cardiovascular patients.

In a comparable patient population, the TRACE‐CORE (Transitions, Risks, and Actions in Coronary Events Center for Outcomes Research and Education) study is a cohort of more than 2200 patients with ACS who were administered the CTM‐15 within 1 month of discharge.[8] In that study, the median CTM‐15 score was 66.6, which is lower than our cohort. With regard to the predictive ability of the CTM‐3, they note that CTM‐3 scores did not differentiate between patients who were or were not readmitted or had emergency department visits. Our results support their concern that the CTM‐15 and by extension the CTM‐3, though adopted widely as part of HCAHPS, may not have sufficient ability to discriminate differences in patient outcomes or the quality of care transitions.

More recently, patient‐reported preparedness for discharge was assessed in a prospective cohort in Canada.[16] Lau et al. administered a single‐item measure of readiness at the time of discharge to general medicine patients, and found that lower readiness scores were also not associated with readmission or death at 30 days, when adjusted for the LACE index as we did.

We must acknowledge the limitations of our findings. First, our sample of recently discharged patients with cardiovascular disease is different than the community‐dwelling, underserved Americans hospitalized in the prior year, which served as the sample for reducing the CTM‐15 to 3 items.[5] This fact may explain why we did not find the CTM‐3 to be associated with readmission in our sample. Second, our analyses did not include extensive adjustment for patient‐related factors. Rather, our intention was to see how well the preparedness measures performed independently and compare their abilities to predict readmission, which is particularly relevant for clinicians who may not have all possible covariates in predicting readmission. Finally, because we limited the analyses to the patients who completed the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures (88% completion rate), we may not have data for: (1) very ill patients, who had a higher risk of readmission and least prepared, and were not able to answer the postdischarge phone call; and (2) very functional patients, who had a lower risk of readmission and were too busy to answer the postdischarge phone call. This may have limited the extremes in the spectrum of our sample.

Importantly, our study has several strengths. We report on the largest sample to date with results of both B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3. Moreover, we examined how these measures compared to a widely used readmission prediction tool, the LACE index. We had very high postdischarge phone call completion rates in the week following discharge. Furthermore, we had thorough assessment of readmission data through patient report, electronic medical record documentation, and collection of outside medical records.

Further research is needed to elucidate: (1) the ideal administration time of the patient‐reported measures of preparedness (before or after discharge), and (2) the challenges to the implementation of measures in healthcare systems. Remaining research questions center on the tradeoffs and barriers to implementing a longer measure like the 11‐item B‐PREPARED compared to a shorter measure like the CTM‐3. We do not know whether longer measures preclude their use by busy clinicians, though it provides more specific information about what patients feel they need at hospital discharge. Additionally, studies need to demonstrate the mutability of preparedness and the response of measures to interventions designed to improve the hospital discharge process.

In our sample of recently hospitalized cardiovascular patients, there was a statistically significant association between patient‐reported preparedness for discharged, as measured by B‐PREPARED, and readmissions/death at 30 and 90 days, but the magnitude of the association was very small. Furthermore, another patient‐reported preparedness measure, CTM‐3, was not associated with readmissions or death at either 30 or 90 days. Lastly, neither measure discriminated well between patients who were readmitted or not, and neither measure added meaningfully to the LACE index in terms of predicting 30‐ or 90‐day readmissions.

In recent years, US hospitals have focused on decreasing readmission rates, incented by reimbursement penalties to hospitals having excessive readmissions.[1] Gaps in the quality of care provided during transitions likely contribute to preventable readmissions.[2] One compelling quality assessment in this setting is measuring patients' discharge preparedness, using key dimensions such as understanding their instructions for medication use and follow‐up. Patient‐reported preparedness for discharge may also be useful to identify risk of readmission.

Several patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge exist, and herein we describe 2 measures of interest. First, the Brief‐PREPARED (B‐PREPARED) measure was derived from the longer PREPARED instrument (Prescriptions, Ready to re‐enter community, Education, Placement, Assurance of safety, Realistic expectations, Empowerment, Directed to appropriate services), which reflects the patient's perceived needs at discharge. In previous research, the B‐PREPARED measure predicted emergency department (ED) visits for patients who had been recently hospitalized and had a high risk for readmission.[3] Second, the Care Transitions Measure‐3 (CTM‐3) was developed by Coleman et al. as a patient‐reported measure to discriminate between patients who were more likely to have an ED visit or readmission from those who did not. CTM‐3 has also been used to evaluate hospitals' level of care coordination and for public reporting purposes.[4, 5, 6] It has been endorsed by the National Quality Forum and incorporated into the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey provided to samples of recently hospitalized US patients.[7] However, recent evidence from an inpatient cohort of cardiovascular patients suggests the CTM‐3 overinflates care transition scores compared to the longer 15‐item CTM. In that cohort, the CTM‐3 could not differentiate between patients who did or did not have repeat ED visits or readmission.[8] Thus far, the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures have not been compared to one another directly.

In addition to the development of patient‐reported measures, hospitals increasingly employ administrative algorithms to predict likelihood of readmission.[9] A commonly used measure is the LACE index (Length of stay, Acuity, Comorbidity, and Emergency department use).[10] The LACE index predicted readmission and death within 30 days of discharge in a large cohort in Canada. In 2 retrospective studies of recently hospitalized patients in the United States, the LACE index's ability to discriminate between patients readmitted or not ranged from slightly better than chance to moderate (C statistic 0.56‐0.77).[11, 12]

It is unknown whether adding patient‐reported preparedness measures to commonly used readmission prediction scores increases the ability to predict readmission risk. We sought to determine whether the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures were predictive of readmission or death, as compared to the LACE index, in a large cohort of cardiovascular patients. In addition, we sought to determine the additional predictive and discriminative ability gained from administering the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures, while adjusting for the LACE index and other clinical factors. We hypothesized that: (1) higher preparedness scores on both measures would predict lower risk of readmission or death in a cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiac diagnoses; and (2) because it provides more specific and actionable information, the B‐PREPARED would discriminate readmission more accurately than CTM‐3, after controlling for clinical factors.

METHODS

RESULTS

From the cohort of 1239 patients (Figure 1), 64%, 28%, and 7% of patients were hospitalized with ACS, ADHF, or both, respectively (Table 1). Nearly 45% of patients were female, 83% were white, and the median age was 61 years (IQR 5269). The median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 25). The median preparedness scores were high for both B‐PREPARED (21, IQR 1822) and CTM‐3 (77.8, IQR 66.7100). A total of 211 (17%) and 380 (31%) were readmitted or died within 30 and 90 days, respectively. The completion rate for the postdischarge phone calls was 88%.

Figure 1

B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 were moderately correlated with one another (Spearman's = 0.40, P < 0.001). In bivariate analyses (Table 1), the association between B‐PREPARED and readmission or death was significant at 90 days (P = 0.030) but not 30 days. The CTM‐3 showed no significant association with readmission or death at either time point. The LACE score was significantly associated with rates of readmission at 30 and 90 days (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, we compared 2 patient‐reported measures of preparedness for discharge, their association with time to death or readmission at 30 and 90 days, and their ability to discriminate patients who were or were not readmitted or died. Higher preparedness as measured by higher B‐PREPARED scores was associated with lower risk of readmission or death at 30 and 90 days after discharge in unadjusted models, and at 90 days in adjusted models. CTM‐3 was not associated with the outcome in any analyses. Lastly, the individual preparedness measures were not as strongly associated with readmission or death compared to the LACE readmission index alone.

How do our findings relate to the measurement of care transition quality? We consider 2 scenarios. First, if hospitals utilize the LACE index to predict readmission, then neither self‐reported measure of preparedness adds meaningfully to its predictive ability. However, hospital management may still find the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 useful as a means to direct care transition quality‐improvement efforts. These measures can instruct hospitals as to what areas their patients express the greatest difficulty or lack of preparedness and closely attend to patient needs with appropriate resources. Furthermore, the patient's perception of being prepared for discharge may be different than their actual preparedness. Their perceived preparedness may be affected by cognitive impairment, dissatisfaction with medical care, depression, lower health‐related quality of life, and lower educational attainment as demonstrated by Lau et al.[16] If a patient's perception of preparedness were low, it would behoove the clinician to investigate these other issues and address those that are mutable. Additionally, perceived preparedness may not correlate with the patient's understanding of their medical conditions, so it is imperative that clinicians provide prospective guidance about their probable postdischarge trajectory. If hospitals are not utilizing the LACE index, then perhaps using the B‐PREPARED, but not the CTM‐3, may be beneficial for predicting readmission.

How do our results fit with evidence from prior studies, and what do they mean in the context of care transitions quality? First, in the psychometric evaluation of the B‐PREPARED measure in a cohort of recently hospitalized patients, the mean score was 17.3, lower than the median of 21 in our cohort.[3] Numerous studies have utilized the CTM‐3 and the longer‐version CTM‐15. Though we cannot make a direct comparison, the median in our cohort (77.8) was on par with the means from other studies, which ranged from 63 to 82.[5, 17, 18, 19] Several studies also note ceiling effects with clusters of scores at the upper end of the scale, as did we. We conjecture that our cohort's preparedness scores may be higher because our institution has made concerted efforts to improve the discharge education for cardiovascular patients.

In a comparable patient population, the TRACE‐CORE (Transitions, Risks, and Actions in Coronary Events Center for Outcomes Research and Education) study is a cohort of more than 2200 patients with ACS who were administered the CTM‐15 within 1 month of discharge.[8] In that study, the median CTM‐15 score was 66.6, which is lower than our cohort. With regard to the predictive ability of the CTM‐3, they note that CTM‐3 scores did not differentiate between patients who were or were not readmitted or had emergency department visits. Our results support their concern that the CTM‐15 and by extension the CTM‐3, though adopted widely as part of HCAHPS, may not have sufficient ability to discriminate differences in patient outcomes or the quality of care transitions.

More recently, patient‐reported preparedness for discharge was assessed in a prospective cohort in Canada.[16] Lau et al. administered a single‐item measure of readiness at the time of discharge to general medicine patients, and found that lower readiness scores were also not associated with readmission or death at 30 days, when adjusted for the LACE index as we did.

We must acknowledge the limitations of our findings. First, our sample of recently discharged patients with cardiovascular disease is different than the community‐dwelling, underserved Americans hospitalized in the prior year, which served as the sample for reducing the CTM‐15 to 3 items.[5] This fact may explain why we did not find the CTM‐3 to be associated with readmission in our sample. Second, our analyses did not include extensive adjustment for patient‐related factors. Rather, our intention was to see how well the preparedness measures performed independently and compare their abilities to predict readmission, which is particularly relevant for clinicians who may not have all possible covariates in predicting readmission. Finally, because we limited the analyses to the patients who completed the B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3 measures (88% completion rate), we may not have data for: (1) very ill patients, who had a higher risk of readmission and least prepared, and were not able to answer the postdischarge phone call; and (2) very functional patients, who had a lower risk of readmission and were too busy to answer the postdischarge phone call. This may have limited the extremes in the spectrum of our sample.

Importantly, our study has several strengths. We report on the largest sample to date with results of both B‐PREPARED and CTM‐3. Moreover, we examined how these measures compared to a widely used readmission prediction tool, the LACE index. We had very high postdischarge phone call completion rates in the week following discharge. Furthermore, we had thorough assessment of readmission data through patient report, electronic medical record documentation, and collection of outside medical records.

Further research is needed to elucidate: (1) the ideal administration time of the patient‐reported measures of preparedness (before or after discharge), and (2) the challenges to the implementation of measures in healthcare systems. Remaining research questions center on the tradeoffs and barriers to implementing a longer measure like the 11‐item B‐PREPARED compared to a shorter measure like the CTM‐3. We do not know whether longer measures preclude their use by busy clinicians, though it provides more specific information about what patients feel they need at hospital discharge. Additionally, studies need to demonstrate the mutability of preparedness and the response of measures to interventions designed to improve the hospital discharge process.

In our sample of recently hospitalized cardiovascular patients, there was a statistically significant association between patient‐reported preparedness for discharged, as measured by B‐PREPARED, and readmissions/death at 30 and 90 days, but the magnitude of the association was very small. Furthermore, another patient‐reported preparedness measure, CTM‐3, was not associated with readmissions or death at either 30 or 90 days. Lastly, neither measure discriminated well between patients who were readmitted or not, and neither measure added meaningfully to the LACE index in terms of predicting 30‐ or 90‐day readmissions.

Delirium is a form of acute brain failure that affects up to 64% of older hospitalized patients and is associated with a multitude of adverse outcomes.[1] Healthcare providers, regardless of clinical setting, do not identify delirium in approximately 75% of cases.[2, 3] The paucity of brief and simple delirium assessment tools has been a barrier to improving delirium recognition.

To address this unmet need, several ultrabrief (<30 seconds) delirium assessment tools have been recently studied. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Fick et al. evaluated 20 individual components of the 3‐minute diagnostic interview for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D‐CAM), which was recently validated in older hospitalized patients.[4, 5] They observed that the best‐performing single‐item delirium assessment was the months of the year backward (MOTYB) task from December to January. This task assesses for inattention, a cardinal feature of delirium. Using a cutoff of 1 or more errors, the MOTYB was 83% sensitive and 69% specific for delirium.[5] By adding name the day of the week, the sensitivity increased to 93% with similar specificity (64%). This supports research by O'Regan et al., who examined MOTYB, but defined a positive screen if they could not recite the months backward from December to July perfectly. They observed a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 90%, respectively, in older hospitalized patients.[6]

The assessment of arousal, another feature of delirium, has also garnered significant interest as another ultrabrief delirium screening method. Arousal is the patient's responsiveness to the environment and can be assessed during routine clinical care. Fick et al. observed that impaired arousal using the 3D‐CAM was 19% sensitive for delirium. This is in contrast to others who have reported sensitivities of 64% to 84%.[7, 8, 9] The difference in sensitivity may in part be explained by the method used to detect arousal. The 3D‐CAM asks, Was the patient sleep/stuporous? or Was the patient hyperviglant? Previous studies used the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), an arousal scale based on eye contact and physical behaviors to assess patients from 5 (coma) to +4 (combative).[10] Therefore, it is important to consider the method of arousal assessment if using this feature for delirium screening.

These ultrabrief delirium assessments would be even more clinically useful if they identified patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. In this same journal issue, 2 studies evaluated the prognostic ability of several ultrabrief delirium assessments. Zadravecz et al. observed that an abnormal RASS was a moderately good predictor of 24‐hour mortality, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82.[11] Yevchak et al. observed that an abnormal RASS or MOTYB was associated with longer hospital length of stays, increased in‐hospital mortality, and need for skilled nursing.[12]

Viewed as a whole, these studies represent a significant advancement in delirium measurement and have the potential to improve this quality‐of‐care issue. However, uncertainties still exist. (1) Can these ultrabrief delirium assessments be used as standalone assessments? Based upon current data, these assessments have a significant proportion of false negative and positive rates. The effect on such misclassification on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization needs to be clarified. Because of this concern, Fick et al. recommended performing a more specific delirium assessment in those who have a positive MOTYB screen.[5] (2) What is the optimal cutoff of the MOTYB task and does this cutoff vary in different patient populations? The optimal cutoff will depend on whether or not a more sensitive test (lower error threshold) or specific test (higher error threshold) is desired. The optimal cutoff may also depend on the patient population (eg, demented versus nondemented). (3) Most important to practicing hospitalist and patients, will introducing these ultrabrief delirium assessments improve delirium recognition and improve patient outcomes? The impetus for widespread implementation of these assessments would be strengthened if healthcare providers successfully applied these assessments in clinical practice and subsequently improved outcomes.

In conclusion, the MOTYB and the assessment of arousal may be reasonable alternatives to more conventional delirium screening, especially in clinical environments with significant time constraints. However, additional research is needed to better refine these instruments to the clinical environment they will be used and determine how they impact clinical care and patient outcomes.

Delirium is a form of acute brain failure that affects up to 64% of older hospitalized patients and is associated with a multitude of adverse outcomes.[1] Healthcare providers, regardless of clinical setting, do not identify delirium in approximately 75% of cases.[2, 3] The paucity of brief and simple delirium assessment tools has been a barrier to improving delirium recognition.

To address this unmet need, several ultrabrief (<30 seconds) delirium assessment tools have been recently studied. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Fick et al. evaluated 20 individual components of the 3‐minute diagnostic interview for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D‐CAM), which was recently validated in older hospitalized patients.[4, 5] They observed that the best‐performing single‐item delirium assessment was the months of the year backward (MOTYB) task from December to January. This task assesses for inattention, a cardinal feature of delirium. Using a cutoff of 1 or more errors, the MOTYB was 83% sensitive and 69% specific for delirium.[5] By adding name the day of the week, the sensitivity increased to 93% with similar specificity (64%). This supports research by O'Regan et al., who examined MOTYB, but defined a positive screen if they could not recite the months backward from December to July perfectly. They observed a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 90%, respectively, in older hospitalized patients.[6]

The assessment of arousal, another feature of delirium, has also garnered significant interest as another ultrabrief delirium screening method. Arousal is the patient's responsiveness to the environment and can be assessed during routine clinical care. Fick et al. observed that impaired arousal using the 3D‐CAM was 19% sensitive for delirium. This is in contrast to others who have reported sensitivities of 64% to 84%.[7, 8, 9] The difference in sensitivity may in part be explained by the method used to detect arousal. The 3D‐CAM asks, Was the patient sleep/stuporous? or Was the patient hyperviglant? Previous studies used the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), an arousal scale based on eye contact and physical behaviors to assess patients from 5 (coma) to +4 (combative).[10] Therefore, it is important to consider the method of arousal assessment if using this feature for delirium screening.

These ultrabrief delirium assessments would be even more clinically useful if they identified patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. In this same journal issue, 2 studies evaluated the prognostic ability of several ultrabrief delirium assessments. Zadravecz et al. observed that an abnormal RASS was a moderately good predictor of 24‐hour mortality, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82.[11] Yevchak et al. observed that an abnormal RASS or MOTYB was associated with longer hospital length of stays, increased in‐hospital mortality, and need for skilled nursing.[12]

Viewed as a whole, these studies represent a significant advancement in delirium measurement and have the potential to improve this quality‐of‐care issue. However, uncertainties still exist. (1) Can these ultrabrief delirium assessments be used as standalone assessments? Based upon current data, these assessments have a significant proportion of false negative and positive rates. The effect on such misclassification on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization needs to be clarified. Because of this concern, Fick et al. recommended performing a more specific delirium assessment in those who have a positive MOTYB screen.[5] (2) What is the optimal cutoff of the MOTYB task and does this cutoff vary in different patient populations? The optimal cutoff will depend on whether or not a more sensitive test (lower error threshold) or specific test (higher error threshold) is desired. The optimal cutoff may also depend on the patient population (eg, demented versus nondemented). (3) Most important to practicing hospitalist and patients, will introducing these ultrabrief delirium assessments improve delirium recognition and improve patient outcomes? The impetus for widespread implementation of these assessments would be strengthened if healthcare providers successfully applied these assessments in clinical practice and subsequently improved outcomes.

In conclusion, the MOTYB and the assessment of arousal may be reasonable alternatives to more conventional delirium screening, especially in clinical environments with significant time constraints. However, additional research is needed to better refine these instruments to the clinical environment they will be used and determine how they impact clinical care and patient outcomes.

Delirium is a form of acute brain failure that affects up to 64% of older hospitalized patients and is associated with a multitude of adverse outcomes.[1] Healthcare providers, regardless of clinical setting, do not identify delirium in approximately 75% of cases.[2, 3] The paucity of brief and simple delirium assessment tools has been a barrier to improving delirium recognition.

To address this unmet need, several ultrabrief (<30 seconds) delirium assessment tools have been recently studied. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Fick et al. evaluated 20 individual components of the 3‐minute diagnostic interview for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D‐CAM), which was recently validated in older hospitalized patients.[4, 5] They observed that the best‐performing single‐item delirium assessment was the months of the year backward (MOTYB) task from December to January. This task assesses for inattention, a cardinal feature of delirium. Using a cutoff of 1 or more errors, the MOTYB was 83% sensitive and 69% specific for delirium.[5] By adding name the day of the week, the sensitivity increased to 93% with similar specificity (64%). This supports research by O'Regan et al., who examined MOTYB, but defined a positive screen if they could not recite the months backward from December to July perfectly. They observed a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 90%, respectively, in older hospitalized patients.[6]

The assessment of arousal, another feature of delirium, has also garnered significant interest as another ultrabrief delirium screening method. Arousal is the patient's responsiveness to the environment and can be assessed during routine clinical care. Fick et al. observed that impaired arousal using the 3D‐CAM was 19% sensitive for delirium. This is in contrast to others who have reported sensitivities of 64% to 84%.[7, 8, 9] The difference in sensitivity may in part be explained by the method used to detect arousal. The 3D‐CAM asks, Was the patient sleep/stuporous? or Was the patient hyperviglant? Previous studies used the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), an arousal scale based on eye contact and physical behaviors to assess patients from 5 (coma) to +4 (combative).[10] Therefore, it is important to consider the method of arousal assessment if using this feature for delirium screening.

These ultrabrief delirium assessments would be even more clinically useful if they identified patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. In this same journal issue, 2 studies evaluated the prognostic ability of several ultrabrief delirium assessments. Zadravecz et al. observed that an abnormal RASS was a moderately good predictor of 24‐hour mortality, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82.[11] Yevchak et al. observed that an abnormal RASS or MOTYB was associated with longer hospital length of stays, increased in‐hospital mortality, and need for skilled nursing.[12]

Viewed as a whole, these studies represent a significant advancement in delirium measurement and have the potential to improve this quality‐of‐care issue. However, uncertainties still exist. (1) Can these ultrabrief delirium assessments be used as standalone assessments? Based upon current data, these assessments have a significant proportion of false negative and positive rates. The effect on such misclassification on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization needs to be clarified. Because of this concern, Fick et al. recommended performing a more specific delirium assessment in those who have a positive MOTYB screen.[5] (2) What is the optimal cutoff of the MOTYB task and does this cutoff vary in different patient populations? The optimal cutoff will depend on whether or not a more sensitive test (lower error threshold) or specific test (higher error threshold) is desired. The optimal cutoff may also depend on the patient population (eg, demented versus nondemented). (3) Most important to practicing hospitalist and patients, will introducing these ultrabrief delirium assessments improve delirium recognition and improve patient outcomes? The impetus for widespread implementation of these assessments would be strengthened if healthcare providers successfully applied these assessments in clinical practice and subsequently improved outcomes.

In conclusion, the MOTYB and the assessment of arousal may be reasonable alternatives to more conventional delirium screening, especially in clinical environments with significant time constraints. However, additional research is needed to better refine these instruments to the clinical environment they will be used and determine how they impact clinical care and patient outcomes.

The presence of hospitalists has been a major change in acute care in recent decades. The demographics of hospitalized patients also have changed, with a substantial increase in the proportion of patients aged 65 years and older to almost 50%. Older hospitalized patients represent a medically complex population, with multiple chronic conditions including cognitive impairment.[1] It is noteworthy that, in many US hospitals, the majority of older patients are now cared for by hospitalists without subspecialty training in geriatric medicine.[2] The convergence of these changes has led us to ask important questions about the best approach to caring for the growing population of hospitalized older patients.

The care of older hospitalized patients poses unique challenges both during and following a hospitalization event. This patient population tends to have multiple chronic conditions coupled with frequent healthcare utilization or transitions in care (eg, hospital to postacute care). In addition, geriatric syndromes are common among this group and may include: delirium, dementia, depression, functional impairment, falls, incontinence, pain, polypharmacy, and unintentional weight loss. It is also common for multiple geriatric syndromes to co‐occur (eg, falls and incontinence). The presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may complicate patient care and additionally impact outcomes, including hospitalization and mortality.[3, 4] An interdisciplinary geriatric team specifically diagnoses and treats these syndromes within the context of other presenting illnesses and comorbidities. Thus, a logical hypothesis would be that specialized geriatric consultation would improve outcomes of older hospitalized patients.

The study by Nazir et al.[5] in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine explores this hypothesis, but generates more questions than answers. Briefly, the study examines a cohort of older hospitalized patients with cognitive impairment (CI). The authors compare rehospitalization and mortality outcomes among 176 patients who received geriatric consultation services (GCS) and 239 patients who received usual hospital care. Although the intervention group differed from the usual care group in meaningful ways outside of the intervention, the investigators did due diligence to adjust for these differences in their analysis. After adjustment, 30‐day and 1‐year mortality outcomes were comparable between groups, and the hazard for 30‐day readmissions was higher for the GCS group.

These findings stood contrary to the authors' hypothesis and what many would expect with subspecialty involvement during hospitalization. As the authors point out, however, we should interpret these findings cautiously due to a number of factors that may contribute to the seemingly limited effect of GCS in this study. First, it is important to note that this study occurred between 2006 and 2008. The emphasis on hospital readmissions as an important clinical outcome was increasing, although it had not reached the level that followed the 2009 publication by Jencks et al.[6] This emphasis further intensified following the inclusion of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) as part of the Affordable Care Act.[7] Thus, the implementation of the GCS in this university‐affiliated hospital may have reflected this pre‐HRRP period. For example, the team‐based rounds occurred only at the time of the initial consult. If a similar GCS were designed today in the post‐HRRP period, one could imagine more intense team‐based involvement occurring throughout the hospital stay, in particular near the time of discharge. In addition, recent studies underscore the importance of supporting transitions in care for older adults, who are often in need of postacute care, home health, and other services following hospitalization.[8] As noted by Nazir and colleagues, other interventions that have shown an impact on 30‐day readmissions were multifaceted and included personnel who provide bridging between the hospital and outpatient setting. The authors also mentioned that a future component of preventing hospital readmissions was a stronger emphasis on advance care planning (ACP) discussions both during and following hospitalization. Neither of these key elements (eg, care transition personnel or proactive ACP discussions) was part of the GCS model evaluated in this study. Thus, it is unknown to what extent the higher 30‐day readmissions that occurred for the GCS group were consistent with patient/family goals of care. It is also unknown to what extent these readmissions were potentially unavoidable.

Perhaps even more importantly, this study is a reminder of the difference between efficacy and effectiveness; that is, does geriatric consultation work (efficacy) versus does a GCS as implemented at this specific hospital work (effectiveness)? The latter reflects not only aspects of what a geriatric interdisciplinary team may diagnose and recommend, but includes how patients are identified for consultation (referral process), the environment in which the consultation occurs (care coordination on unit or among team), and the fidelity to GCS recommendations. Without reported measures, it is unclear to what extent GCS achieved better recognition and treatment of geriatric syndromes, a reduction in polypharmacy, and optimal discharge planning. Theoretically, it is through the robust implementation of these components that better clinical outcomes would result. Even with a high degree of intervention implementation, 12‐month outcomes may be too far removed from the GCS intervention, especially for older patients with CI who are at high risk for decline.

Unfortunately, geriatric syndromes often go unrecognized, with high rates of polypharmacy at hospital discharge[9] and more than 50% of inpatients with unrecognized dementia,[10] delirium,[11] depression,[12] and nutritional risk.[13] Thus, our need for hospital geriatric care and expertise is greater than ever. This study highlights many of the challenges of the traditional consultative model of care and a need for innovative approaches to recognize and treat geriatric syndromes. It is likely that, given the complex nature of geriatric patients, efficacious consultative models will need to address multiple chronic conditions and extend beyond the hospital discharge period. However, based on available evidence, it is currently unclear what specific interventions are efficacious and what type of geriatric consultative model is required. No matter the method, hospitalists must recognize the unique challenges of this population and work to ensure safe hospitalization and care transitions.

The presence of hospitalists has been a major change in acute care in recent decades. The demographics of hospitalized patients also have changed, with a substantial increase in the proportion of patients aged 65 years and older to almost 50%. Older hospitalized patients represent a medically complex population, with multiple chronic conditions including cognitive impairment.[1] It is noteworthy that, in many US hospitals, the majority of older patients are now cared for by hospitalists without subspecialty training in geriatric medicine.[2] The convergence of these changes has led us to ask important questions about the best approach to caring for the growing population of hospitalized older patients.

The care of older hospitalized patients poses unique challenges both during and following a hospitalization event. This patient population tends to have multiple chronic conditions coupled with frequent healthcare utilization or transitions in care (eg, hospital to postacute care). In addition, geriatric syndromes are common among this group and may include: delirium, dementia, depression, functional impairment, falls, incontinence, pain, polypharmacy, and unintentional weight loss. It is also common for multiple geriatric syndromes to co‐occur (eg, falls and incontinence). The presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may complicate patient care and additionally impact outcomes, including hospitalization and mortality.[3, 4] An interdisciplinary geriatric team specifically diagnoses and treats these syndromes within the context of other presenting illnesses and comorbidities. Thus, a logical hypothesis would be that specialized geriatric consultation would improve outcomes of older hospitalized patients.

The study by Nazir et al.[5] in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine explores this hypothesis, but generates more questions than answers. Briefly, the study examines a cohort of older hospitalized patients with cognitive impairment (CI). The authors compare rehospitalization and mortality outcomes among 176 patients who received geriatric consultation services (GCS) and 239 patients who received usual hospital care. Although the intervention group differed from the usual care group in meaningful ways outside of the intervention, the investigators did due diligence to adjust for these differences in their analysis. After adjustment, 30‐day and 1‐year mortality outcomes were comparable between groups, and the hazard for 30‐day readmissions was higher for the GCS group.

These findings stood contrary to the authors' hypothesis and what many would expect with subspecialty involvement during hospitalization. As the authors point out, however, we should interpret these findings cautiously due to a number of factors that may contribute to the seemingly limited effect of GCS in this study. First, it is important to note that this study occurred between 2006 and 2008. The emphasis on hospital readmissions as an important clinical outcome was increasing, although it had not reached the level that followed the 2009 publication by Jencks et al.[6] This emphasis further intensified following the inclusion of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) as part of the Affordable Care Act.[7] Thus, the implementation of the GCS in this university‐affiliated hospital may have reflected this pre‐HRRP period. For example, the team‐based rounds occurred only at the time of the initial consult. If a similar GCS were designed today in the post‐HRRP period, one could imagine more intense team‐based involvement occurring throughout the hospital stay, in particular near the time of discharge. In addition, recent studies underscore the importance of supporting transitions in care for older adults, who are often in need of postacute care, home health, and other services following hospitalization.[8] As noted by Nazir and colleagues, other interventions that have shown an impact on 30‐day readmissions were multifaceted and included personnel who provide bridging between the hospital and outpatient setting. The authors also mentioned that a future component of preventing hospital readmissions was a stronger emphasis on advance care planning (ACP) discussions both during and following hospitalization. Neither of these key elements (eg, care transition personnel or proactive ACP discussions) was part of the GCS model evaluated in this study. Thus, it is unknown to what extent the higher 30‐day readmissions that occurred for the GCS group were consistent with patient/family goals of care. It is also unknown to what extent these readmissions were potentially unavoidable.

Perhaps even more importantly, this study is a reminder of the difference between efficacy and effectiveness; that is, does geriatric consultation work (efficacy) versus does a GCS as implemented at this specific hospital work (effectiveness)? The latter reflects not only aspects of what a geriatric interdisciplinary team may diagnose and recommend, but includes how patients are identified for consultation (referral process), the environment in which the consultation occurs (care coordination on unit or among team), and the fidelity to GCS recommendations. Without reported measures, it is unclear to what extent GCS achieved better recognition and treatment of geriatric syndromes, a reduction in polypharmacy, and optimal discharge planning. Theoretically, it is through the robust implementation of these components that better clinical outcomes would result. Even with a high degree of intervention implementation, 12‐month outcomes may be too far removed from the GCS intervention, especially for older patients with CI who are at high risk for decline.

Unfortunately, geriatric syndromes often go unrecognized, with high rates of polypharmacy at hospital discharge[9] and more than 50% of inpatients with unrecognized dementia,[10] delirium,[11] depression,[12] and nutritional risk.[13] Thus, our need for hospital geriatric care and expertise is greater than ever. This study highlights many of the challenges of the traditional consultative model of care and a need for innovative approaches to recognize and treat geriatric syndromes. It is likely that, given the complex nature of geriatric patients, efficacious consultative models will need to address multiple chronic conditions and extend beyond the hospital discharge period. However, based on available evidence, it is currently unclear what specific interventions are efficacious and what type of geriatric consultative model is required. No matter the method, hospitalists must recognize the unique challenges of this population and work to ensure safe hospitalization and care transitions.

The presence of hospitalists has been a major change in acute care in recent decades. The demographics of hospitalized patients also have changed, with a substantial increase in the proportion of patients aged 65 years and older to almost 50%. Older hospitalized patients represent a medically complex population, with multiple chronic conditions including cognitive impairment.[1] It is noteworthy that, in many US hospitals, the majority of older patients are now cared for by hospitalists without subspecialty training in geriatric medicine.[2] The convergence of these changes has led us to ask important questions about the best approach to caring for the growing population of hospitalized older patients.

The care of older hospitalized patients poses unique challenges both during and following a hospitalization event. This patient population tends to have multiple chronic conditions coupled with frequent healthcare utilization or transitions in care (eg, hospital to postacute care). In addition, geriatric syndromes are common among this group and may include: delirium, dementia, depression, functional impairment, falls, incontinence, pain, polypharmacy, and unintentional weight loss. It is also common for multiple geriatric syndromes to co‐occur (eg, falls and incontinence). The presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may complicate patient care and additionally impact outcomes, including hospitalization and mortality.[3, 4] An interdisciplinary geriatric team specifically diagnoses and treats these syndromes within the context of other presenting illnesses and comorbidities. Thus, a logical hypothesis would be that specialized geriatric consultation would improve outcomes of older hospitalized patients.

The study by Nazir et al.[5] in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine explores this hypothesis, but generates more questions than answers. Briefly, the study examines a cohort of older hospitalized patients with cognitive impairment (CI). The authors compare rehospitalization and mortality outcomes among 176 patients who received geriatric consultation services (GCS) and 239 patients who received usual hospital care. Although the intervention group differed from the usual care group in meaningful ways outside of the intervention, the investigators did due diligence to adjust for these differences in their analysis. After adjustment, 30‐day and 1‐year mortality outcomes were comparable between groups, and the hazard for 30‐day readmissions was higher for the GCS group.

These findings stood contrary to the authors' hypothesis and what many would expect with subspecialty involvement during hospitalization. As the authors point out, however, we should interpret these findings cautiously due to a number of factors that may contribute to the seemingly limited effect of GCS in this study. First, it is important to note that this study occurred between 2006 and 2008. The emphasis on hospital readmissions as an important clinical outcome was increasing, although it had not reached the level that followed the 2009 publication by Jencks et al.[6] This emphasis further intensified following the inclusion of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) as part of the Affordable Care Act.[7] Thus, the implementation of the GCS in this university‐affiliated hospital may have reflected this pre‐HRRP period. For example, the team‐based rounds occurred only at the time of the initial consult. If a similar GCS were designed today in the post‐HRRP period, one could imagine more intense team‐based involvement occurring throughout the hospital stay, in particular near the time of discharge. In addition, recent studies underscore the importance of supporting transitions in care for older adults, who are often in need of postacute care, home health, and other services following hospitalization.[8] As noted by Nazir and colleagues, other interventions that have shown an impact on 30‐day readmissions were multifaceted and included personnel who provide bridging between the hospital and outpatient setting. The authors also mentioned that a future component of preventing hospital readmissions was a stronger emphasis on advance care planning (ACP) discussions both during and following hospitalization. Neither of these key elements (eg, care transition personnel or proactive ACP discussions) was part of the GCS model evaluated in this study. Thus, it is unknown to what extent the higher 30‐day readmissions that occurred for the GCS group were consistent with patient/family goals of care. It is also unknown to what extent these readmissions were potentially unavoidable.

Perhaps even more importantly, this study is a reminder of the difference between efficacy and effectiveness; that is, does geriatric consultation work (efficacy) versus does a GCS as implemented at this specific hospital work (effectiveness)? The latter reflects not only aspects of what a geriatric interdisciplinary team may diagnose and recommend, but includes how patients are identified for consultation (referral process), the environment in which the consultation occurs (care coordination on unit or among team), and the fidelity to GCS recommendations. Without reported measures, it is unclear to what extent GCS achieved better recognition and treatment of geriatric syndromes, a reduction in polypharmacy, and optimal discharge planning. Theoretically, it is through the robust implementation of these components that better clinical outcomes would result. Even with a high degree of intervention implementation, 12‐month outcomes may be too far removed from the GCS intervention, especially for older patients with CI who are at high risk for decline.

Unfortunately, geriatric syndromes often go unrecognized, with high rates of polypharmacy at hospital discharge[9] and more than 50% of inpatients with unrecognized dementia,[10] delirium,[11] depression,[12] and nutritional risk.[13] Thus, our need for hospital geriatric care and expertise is greater than ever. This study highlights many of the challenges of the traditional consultative model of care and a need for innovative approaches to recognize and treat geriatric syndromes. It is likely that, given the complex nature of geriatric patients, efficacious consultative models will need to address multiple chronic conditions and extend beyond the hospital discharge period. However, based on available evidence, it is currently unclear what specific interventions are efficacious and what type of geriatric consultative model is required. No matter the method, hospitalists must recognize the unique challenges of this population and work to ensure safe hospitalization and care transitions.

Arousal is defined as the patient's overall level of responsiveness to the environment. Its assessment is standard of care in most intensive care units (ICUs) to monitor depth of sedation and underlying brain dysfunction. There has been recent interest in expanding the role of arousal assessment beyond the ICU. Specifically, the Veterans Affairs Delirium Working Group proposed that simple arousal assessment be a vital sign to quantify underlying brain dysfunction.[1] The rationale is that impaired arousal is closely linked with delirium,[2] and is an integral component of multiple delirium assessments.[3, 4, 5] Chester et al. observed that the presence of impaired arousal was 64% sensitive and 93% specific for delirium diagnosed by a psychiatrist.[2] Delirium is an under‐recognized public health problem that affects up to 25% of older hospitalized patients,[6, 7] is associated with a multitude of adverse outcomes such as death and accelerated cognitive decline,[8] and costs the US healthcare system an excess of $152 billion dollars.[9]

Most delirium assessments require the patient to undergo additional cognitive testing. The assessment of arousal, however, requires the rater to merely observe the patient during routine clinical care and can be easily integrated into the clinical workflow.[10] Because of its simplicity and brevity, assessing arousal alone using validated scales such as the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS) may be a more appealing alternative to traditional, more complex delirium screening in the acute care setting. Its clinical utility would be further strengthened if impaired arousal was also associated with mortality, and conferred risk even in the absence of delirium. As a result, we sought to determine if impaired arousal at initial presentation in older acutely ill patients predicted 6‐month mortality and whether this relationship was present in the absence of delirium.

METHODS

RESULTS

A total of 1903 patients were screened, and 1084 patients met enrollment criteria (Figure 1). Of these, 1051 (97.0%) were non‐ICU patients. Patient characteristics of this cohort can be seen in Table 2. Enrolled patients and potentially eligible patients who presented to the emergency department during the enrollment window were similar in age, gender, and severity of illness, but enrolled patients were slightly more likely to have a chief complaint of chest pain and syncope (unpublished data).

Figure 1

Of those enrolled, 249 (23.0%) had an abnormal RASS at initial presentation, and their distribution can be seen in Figure 2. Within 6 months, patients with an abnormal RASS were more likely to die compared with patients with a RASS of 0 (23.7% vs 9.7%, P<0.001). The Kaplan‐Meier survival curves for all enrolled patients with impaired and normal RASS can be seen in Figure 3; the survival curve declined more slowly in patients with a normal RASS compared with those with an abnormal RASS.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Using Cox proportional hazards regression, the relationship between an abnormal RASS at initial presentation and 6‐month mortality persisted (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.21‐2.49) after adjusting for age, sex, nonwhite race, comorbidity burden, severity of illness, dementia, functional dependence, nursing home residence, psychoactive medications given, and admission status. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and APS (severity of illness) had a P value of 0.52. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and benzodiazepine or opioid medication administration had a P value of 0.38. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and admission status had a P value of 0.57. This indicated that severity of illness, psychoactive medication administration, and admission status did not modify the relationship between an abnormal RASS and 6‐month mortality.

We analyzed a subset of 406 patients who received a psychiatrist's assessment to determine if an abnormal RASS was associated with 6‐month mortality regardless of delirium status using Cox proportional hazard regression weighted by the inverse of the propensity score. Patients with an abnormal RASS and no delirium were significantly associated with higher mortality compared to those with a normal RASS (HR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.10‐4.41). Patients with an abnormal RASS with delirium also had an increased risk for 6‐month mortality (HR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.29‐6.34).

All regression models were internally validated. There was no evidence of substantial overfitting or collinearity. The Schoenfeld residuals for each model were examined graphically and there was good model fit overall, and no significant outliers were observed.

DISCUSSION

Vital sign measurements are a fundamental component of patient care, and abnormalities can serve as an early warning signal of the patient's clinical deterioration. However, traditional vital signs do not include an assessment of the patient's brain function. Our chief finding is that impaired arousal at initial presentation, as determined by the nonphysician research staff, increased the risk of 6‐month mortality by 73% after adjusting for confounders in a diverse group of acutely ill older patients. This relationship existed regardless of severity of illness, administration of psychoactive medications, and admission status. Though impaired arousal is closely linked with delirium,[2, 24] which is another well‐known predictor of mortality,[11, 25, 26] the prognostic significance of impaired arousal appeared to extend beyond delirium. We observed that the relationship between 6‐month mortality and impaired arousal in the absence of delirium was remarkably similar to that observed with impaired arousal with delirium. Arousal can be assessed for by simply observing the patient during routine clinical care and can be performed by nonphysician and physician healthcare providers. Its assessment should be performed and communicated in conjunction with traditional vital sign measurements in the emergency department and inpatient settings.[1]

Most of the data linking impaired arousal to death have been collected in the ICU. Coma, which represents the most severe form of depressed arousal, has been shown to increase the likelihood of death regardless of underlying etiology.[27, 28, 29, 30, 31] This includes patients who have impaired arousal because they received sedative medications during mechanical ventilation.[32] Few studies have investigated the effect of impaired arousal in a non‐ICU patient population. Zuliani et al. observed that impaired arousal was associated with 30‐day mortality, but their study was conducted in 469 older stroke patients, limiting the study's external validity to a more general patient population.[33] Our data advance the current stage of knowledge; we observed a similar relationship between impaired arousal and 6‐month mortality in a much broader clinical population who were predominantly not critically ill regardless of delirium status. Additionally, most of our impaired arousal cohort had a RASS of 1, indicating that even subtle abnormalities portended adverse outcomes.

In addition to long‐term prognosis, the presence of impaired arousal has immediate clinical implications. Using arousal scales like the RASS can serve as a way for healthcare providers to succinctly communicate the patient's mental status in a standardized manner during transitions of care (eg, emergency physician to inpatient team). Regardless of which clinical setting they are in, older acutely ill patients with an impaired arousal may also require close monitoring, especially if the impairment is acute. Because of its close relationship with delirium, these patients likely have an underlying acute medical illness that precipitated their impaired arousal.

Understanding the true clinical significance of impaired arousal in the absence of delirium requires further study. Because of the fluctuating nature of delirium, it is possible that these patients may have initially been delirious and then became nondelirious during the psychiatrist's evaluation. Conversely, it is also possible that these patients may have eventually transitioned into delirium at later point in time; the presence of impaired arousal alone may be a precursor to delirium. Last, these patients may have had subsyndromal delirium, which is defined as having 1 or more delirium symptoms without ever meeting full DSM‐IV‐TR criteria for delirium.[34] Patients with subsyndromal delirium have poorer outcomes, such as prolonged hospitalizations, and higher mortality than patients without delirium symptoms.[34]

Additional studies are also needed to further clarify the impact of impaired arousal on nonmortality outcomes such as functional and cognitive decline. The prognostic significance of serial arousal measurements also requires further study. It is possible that patients whose impaired arousal rapidly resolves after an intervention may have better prognoses than those who have persistent impairment. The measurement of arousal may have additional clinical applications in disease prognosis models. The presence of altered mental status is incorporated in various disease‐specific risk scores such as the CURB‐65 or Pneumonia Severity Index for pneumonia,[35, 36] and the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for pulmonary embolism.[37] However, the definition of altered mental status is highly variable; it ranges from subjective impressions that can be unreliable to formal cognitive testing, which can be time consuming. Arousal scales such as the RASS may allow for more feasible, reliable, and standardized assessment of mental status. Future studies should investigate if incorporating the RASS would improve the discrimination of these disease‐severity indices.

This study has several notable limitations. We excluded patients with a RASS of 4 and 5, which represented comatose patients. This exclusion, however, likely biased our findings toward the null. We enrolled a convenience sample that may have introduced selection bias. However, our enrolled cohort was similar to all potentially eligible patients who presented to the emergency department during the study period. We also attempted to mitigate this selection bias by using multivariable regression and adjusting for factors that may have confounded the relationship between RASS and 6‐month mortality. This study was performed at a single, urban, academic hospital and enrolled patients who were aged 65 years and older. Our findings may not be generalizable to other settings and to those who are under 65 years of age. Because 406 patients received a psychiatric evaluation, this limited the number of covariates that could be incorporated into the multivariable model to evaluate if impaired arousal in the absence of delirium is associated with 6‐month mortality. To minimize residual confounding, we used the inverse weighted propensity score, but we acknowledge that this bias may still exist. Larger studies are needed to clarify the relationships between arousal, delirium, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, impaired arousal at initial presentation is an independent predictor for 6‐month mortality in a diverse group of acutely ill older patients, and this risk appears to be present even in the absence of delirium. Because of its ease of use and prognostic significance, it may be a useful vital sign for underlying brain dysfunction. Routine standardized assessment and communication of arousal during routine clinical care may be warranted.

Disclosures: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Vanderbilt Physician Scientist Development Award, Emergency Medicine Foundation, and National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23AG032355. This study was also supported by the National Center for Research Resources, grant UL1 RR024975‐01, and is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant 2 UL1 TR000445‐06. Dr. Vasilevskis was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23AG040157. Dr. Powers was supported by Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Education Centers, grant 1D31HP08823‐01‐00. Dr. Storrow was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K12HL1090 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences under award number UL1TR000445. Dr. Ely was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01AG027472 and R01AG035117, and a Veteran Affairs MERIT award. Drs. Vasilevskis, Schnelle, Dittus, Powers, and Ely were supported by the Veteran Affairs Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Vanderbilt University, Emergency Medicine Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Veterans Affairs. The funding agencies did not have any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

J.H.H., E.W.E., J.F.S., A.B.S., and R.D.S. conceived the trial. J.H.H., E.W.E., A.B.S., J.F.S., R.D.S., A.S., and A.W. participated in the study design. J.H.H. and A.W. recruited patients and collected the data. J.H.H., A.J.G., and A.S. analyzed the data. All authors participated in the interpretation of results. J.H.H. drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed to the critical review and revision of the manuscript.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Arousal is defined as the patient's overall level of responsiveness to the environment. Its assessment is standard of care in most intensive care units (ICUs) to monitor depth of sedation and underlying brain dysfunction. There has been recent interest in expanding the role of arousal assessment beyond the ICU. Specifically, the Veterans Affairs Delirium Working Group proposed that simple arousal assessment be a vital sign to quantify underlying brain dysfunction.[1] The rationale is that impaired arousal is closely linked with delirium,[2] and is an integral component of multiple delirium assessments.[3, 4, 5] Chester et al. observed that the presence of impaired arousal was 64% sensitive and 93% specific for delirium diagnosed by a psychiatrist.[2] Delirium is an under‐recognized public health problem that affects up to 25% of older hospitalized patients,[6, 7] is associated with a multitude of adverse outcomes such as death and accelerated cognitive decline,[8] and costs the US healthcare system an excess of $152 billion dollars.[9]

Most delirium assessments require the patient to undergo additional cognitive testing. The assessment of arousal, however, requires the rater to merely observe the patient during routine clinical care and can be easily integrated into the clinical workflow.[10] Because of its simplicity and brevity, assessing arousal alone using validated scales such as the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS) may be a more appealing alternative to traditional, more complex delirium screening in the acute care setting. Its clinical utility would be further strengthened if impaired arousal was also associated with mortality, and conferred risk even in the absence of delirium. As a result, we sought to determine if impaired arousal at initial presentation in older acutely ill patients predicted 6‐month mortality and whether this relationship was present in the absence of delirium.

METHODS

RESULTS

A total of 1903 patients were screened, and 1084 patients met enrollment criteria (Figure 1). Of these, 1051 (97.0%) were non‐ICU patients. Patient characteristics of this cohort can be seen in Table 2. Enrolled patients and potentially eligible patients who presented to the emergency department during the enrollment window were similar in age, gender, and severity of illness, but enrolled patients were slightly more likely to have a chief complaint of chest pain and syncope (unpublished data).

Figure 1

Of those enrolled, 249 (23.0%) had an abnormal RASS at initial presentation, and their distribution can be seen in Figure 2. Within 6 months, patients with an abnormal RASS were more likely to die compared with patients with a RASS of 0 (23.7% vs 9.7%, P<0.001). The Kaplan‐Meier survival curves for all enrolled patients with impaired and normal RASS can be seen in Figure 3; the survival curve declined more slowly in patients with a normal RASS compared with those with an abnormal RASS.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Using Cox proportional hazards regression, the relationship between an abnormal RASS at initial presentation and 6‐month mortality persisted (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.21‐2.49) after adjusting for age, sex, nonwhite race, comorbidity burden, severity of illness, dementia, functional dependence, nursing home residence, psychoactive medications given, and admission status. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and APS (severity of illness) had a P value of 0.52. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and benzodiazepine or opioid medication administration had a P value of 0.38. The interaction between an abnormal RASS and admission status had a P value of 0.57. This indicated that severity of illness, psychoactive medication administration, and admission status did not modify the relationship between an abnormal RASS and 6‐month mortality.