Introduction: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study.Methods: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August–September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors.Results: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2–4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include.Conclusions: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.

Recognizing frailty and providing evidenced-based management in busy emergency departments is challenging. Understanding the knowledge and educational needs of ED staff is important to design training that might improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore frailty knowledge of ED staff, use of frailty screening instruments in Irish emergency departments, and educational challenges in the emergency department. A multisite survey of ED staff (different specialties) was conducted between April and September 2021. An anonymous online survey was distributed via email. Free-text sections were analyzed using content analysis. In total, 168 staff (nursing, medical and allied health) participated, representing 9 of 26 Irish emergency departments (35%). Most respondents were nurses (n = 78, 46%). Less than half of respondents had received frailty identification training (n = 81, 48%). One-fifth of emergency doctors and nurses (20%) were unsure how to define frailty. Major barriers to ED frailty screening were resource deficits, insufficient diagnostic pathways from the emergency departments, and lack of education on suitable instruments. Most of the ED staff surveyed relied on clinical judgment rather than formal training in frailty identification. A high proportion reported poor knowledge and low confidence in recognizing frailty. Dedicated staff with frailty management expertise, bespoke education initiatives, and clearly defined frailty screening pathways may help address the issues identified.

Background: Prompt and efficient identification and stratification of patients who are frail is important, as this cohort are at high risk of adverse healthcare outcomes. Numerous frailty screening tools have been developed to support their identification across different settings, yet relatively few have emerged for use in emergency departments (EDs). This protocol provides details for a systematic review aiming to synthesize the accumulated evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy and clinimetric properties of frailty screening instruments to identify frail older adults in EDs. Methods: Six electronic databases will be searched from January 2000 to March 2021. Eligible studies will include adults aged ≥60 years screened in EDs with any available screening instrument to identify frailty (even if not originally designed for this purpose). Studies, including case-control, longitudinal, and cohort studies, will be included, where instruments are compared to a reference standard to explore diagnostic accuracy. Predictive accuracy for a selection of outcomes, including mortality, institutionalization, and readmission, will be assessed. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be examined, and a random effects meta-analysis performed if appropriate. Conclusion: Understanding whether frailty screening on presentation to EDs is accurate in identifying frailty, and predicting these outcomes is important for decision-making and targeting appropriate management.

Background: Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person’s behaviour. Ethical issues are a key component of healthcare and frequently arise in the management of hospitalized older patients. To improve decision-making and reduce burden on individual hospital staff, Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been widely-integrated into care pathways internationally. However, the need for CESS has received little attention in Irish hospitals. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the ethical situation and CESS readiness at a tertiary hospital in Ireland was collected from July-October 2021 and in February 2022 via hard copies and online collection (SurveyMonkey). Both clinical (medicine, nursing other patient care role) and non-clinical (administrative, clerical, ICT, HR, general support staff and management) staff participated. Descriptive statistics were assessed taking the valid percentages, mean 5-item Likert scores and Friedman Test mean rank for ten ranked statements. Results: In total, 199 people (13% response rate) completed the survey. Staff were largely (76%) clinical and the majority were qualified >10 years (57%). In all, 78% reported that ethical issues arise in the role (83% clinical staff, 59% non-clinical staff). Most (63%) were unsure who to contact about ethical concerns, instead seeking informal advice from colleagues (>90%). The majority of participants were interested in additional ethical training, especially on decision-making capacity (mean interest 4.18 out of 5), strategies for working with challenging patient/family situations (4.07 out of 5) and end-of-life care (4.06 out of 5). Out of ten options assessed, participants preferenced the development of a formal clinical ethics committee over education and training or the provision of educational materials. Conclusion: Ethical issues commonly arise when caring for older hospitalized patients. This study found a perceived need and widespread interest in additional education as well as formal approaches to develop a hospital-based CESS, centred around a formal committee structure.