Vital signs are essential for monitoring and prognostication in the emergency department (ED); however, they may not fully capture the complexity of frailty in older adults. In this multicenter retrospective study of 932 older patients who visited the EDs of three tertiary university hospitals between August 1 and October 31, 2023, we investigated the prognostic value of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in older patients in the ED and its potential to improve existing vital sign-based scoring systems. The primary outcomes were hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. The AUROC was used to evaluate and compare the predictive performance of CFS, qSOFA, NEWS2, and REMS scores individually and in combination. Combining the CFS with these scores significantly improved predictive accuracy compared to individual scores alone. For hospital admission, the AUROCs were 0.715 (95% CI 0.685–0.744), 0.723 (95% CI 0.693–0.752), and 0.688 (95% CI 0.657–0.718) for CFS + qSOFA, CFS + NEWS2, and CFS + REMS, respectively. For ICU admission, the AUROCs were 0.730 (95% CI 0.701–0.759), 0.714 (95% CI 0.684–0.743), and 0.707 (95% CI 0.677–0.736), respectively. For in-hospital mortality, the AUROCs were 0.798 (95% CI: 0.771–0.823), 0.774 (95% CI: 0.746–0.801), and 0.819 (95% CI: 0.793–0.843), respectively, indicating excellent performance. Incorporating frailty assessment using the CFS enhances risk stratification in older patients in the ED by complementing vital sign-based scores. This provides a more comprehensive assessment, enabling better informed clinical decisions. This study supports employing routine frailty assessment in the ED and the development of enhanced risk stratification tools that incorporate frailty.

While many patients visit the emergency department (ED) for various reasons, medical resources are limited. Therefore, various triage scale systems have been used to predict patient urgency and severity. South Korea has developed and used the Korean Triage and Accuracy Scale (KTAS) based on the Canadian classification tool. As the elderly population increases, the number of elderly patients visiting the ED also increases. However, in KTAS, there is no consideration for the elderly, and the same classification system as adults. The aim of this study is to verify the ability of KTAS to predict severity levels in the elderly group, compared to the adult group. This is a retrospective study for patients who visited the ED at two centers between February 1, 2018 and January 31, 2021. The initial KTAS level, changed level at ED discharge, general patient character, ED treatment results, in-hospital mortality, and lengths of hospital and ED stays were acquired. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was used to verify the severity prediction ability of the elderly group to KTAS, and logistic regression analysis was used for the prediction up-triage of KTAS. The enrolled patients in the study were 87,220 in the adult group and 37,627 in the elderly group. The proportion of KTAS up-triage was higher in the elderly group (1.9 % vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.001). The AUROC for the overall admission rate was 0.686, 0.667 in the adult and elderly group, the AUROC for ICU admission was 0.842, 0.767, and the AUROC for in-hospital mortality prediction was 0.809, 0.711, indicating a decrease in the AUROC value in the elderly group. The independent factors of the up-triage predictors were old age, male gender, pulse, and ED length of stay, and old age was the most influential variable. KTAS was poorly associated with severity in the elderly than in adults, and it was found that up-triaging was more likely to occur in the elderly. The severity and urgency of patients over 65 years of age should not be underestimated when initially determining the triage scale.

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected emergency department (ED) management. Its viral transmission necessitates the use of isolation rooms and personal protective equipment for treating suspected patients, such as those with fever. This delays the time until the first encounter with the patients, thereby increasing the length of stay (LOS) in the ED. We aimed to compare delays in the ED LOS and clinical processes between the COVID-19 period and pre-COVID-19 period. Moreover, we intended to evaluate if the aforementioned delay affected patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study in Korea. Patients with fever were compared between the “COVID-19 period” from March 2020 to August 2020 and the “pre-COVID-19 period” from March 2019 to September 2019. We compared the overall ED LOS and individual time variable, including initial diagnostic tests (laboratory tests, radiography), specific diagnostic test (computed tomography), and treatment processes (antibiotics). A logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the association between hospital admission and patient data. Results: We enrolled 931 and 749 patients during pre- and COVID-19 periods, respectively. Patients with fever remained in the ED for a longer duration during the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19:207.7 ± 102.7 min vs. during COVID-19: 223.5 ± 119.4 min, p = 0.004). The total time for performing laboratory tests and radiography displayed significant differences between the two periods, particularly from the time of patient arrival in the ED to the time of issuing the order. The time until antibiotic administration was delayed in the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19:195.8 ± 103.3 min vs. during COVID-19: 216.9 ± 108.4 min, p = 0.003). The logistic regression analysis for hospital admission identified ED LOS as an independent factor in both periods. Conclusions: The delay until encountering patients with fever resulted in longer ED LOS during the COVID-19 period; however, it possibly did not increase the hospital admission rates.

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely utilized for risk stratification in emergency departments (EDs); however, its predictive value across various age groups remains unclear. In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed 6,310 patients in the ED aged ≥ 65 years, categorized into young-old (65–74 years, n = 2,750), middle-old (75–84 years, n = 2,400), and old-old (≥ 85 years, n = 1,160) groups. According to CFS, patients were categorized as robust (scores 1–3), pre-frail (score 4), or frail (scores 5–9). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the independent association between frailty categories and clinical outcomes (ICU admission and in-hospital mortality), adjusting for age, sex, and illness severity. Predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The predictive value of CFS varied significantly across age groups. In the young-old group, frail status was independently associated with increased ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.076–2.062) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.232, 95% CI 1.738–6.009). The middle-old group demonstrated the strongest relationship with mortality for frail patients (aOR 5.361, 95% CI 2.872–10.007), but no significant association with ICU admission after adjustment. In the old-old group, neither pre-frail nor frail status significantly predicted outcomes. AUROC analysis showed the highest discriminative capability for ICU admission in the young-old group (0.616, 95% CI 0.597–0.634) and for mortality in the middle-old group (0.730, 95% CI 0.712–0.748), with reduced predictive value observed in the old-old group. The prognostic value of CFS varies significantly by age group, demonstrating the strongest performance in young-old patients and diminishing predictive value in the old-old group. These findings suggest the need for age-specific frailty assessment strategies in emergency care, with additional clinical indicators potentially necessary for risk stratification in the oldest patients. Not applicable.