Patients aged 75 years and older represent 12% of the overall emergency department (ED) population, and this proportion will increase over the next decades. Many of the discharged patients suffer an unplanned readmission in the immediate and midterm post-discharge period, suggesting under recognition of psychosocial, cognitive and medical problems. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of older patients admitted and discharged from the ED and to determine independent predictors for ED readmission 1 month and 3 months after ED discharge based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Cohort study in a Belgian university hospital. A CGA, including demographic and medical data (e.g. reason for admission, comorbidity, number of medications), functional (e.g. activities of daily living, falls), mental (i.e. cognition, dementia, delirium), and nutritional status, and pain, was performed in 442 ED patients aged 75 years or older. Patients discharged from the ED (n = 117, 26.5%) were significantly less dependent for ADL, mobility, shopping and finances compared with hospitalised patients. Hospitalised patients (n = 325, 73.5%) were significantly more at risk for having nutritional problems, had a higher comorbidity index, and a lower cognitive status compared with those discharged. Ninety-seven patients (82.9%) were discharged home from the ED. Of the latter, 18 (18.6%) and 28 patients (28.9%) suffered an ED readmission within 1 and 3 months, respectively. At one month post-discharge, nursing care at home, meals on wheels, and risk for depression; and at 3 months post-discharge previous hospitalisation in the last 3 months, physiotherapy and meals on wheels were found to be independent predictors for ED readmission, respectively. This study observed a geriatric risk profile in older adults at the ED and a high readmission rate of those discharged, and suggests the potential value of CGA in identifying older patients at high risk for ED readmission.

Medical students have been deployed in victim care of several disasters throughout history. They are corner stones in first-line care in recent pandemic planning. Furthermore, every physician and senior medical student is expected to assist in case of disaster situations, but are they educated to do so? Being one of Europe’s densest populated countries with multiple nuclear installations, a large petrochemical industry and also at risk for terrorist attacks, The Netherlands bear some risks for incidents. We evaluated the knowledge on Disaster Medicine in the Dutch medical curriculum. Our hypothesis is that Dutch senior medical students are not prepared at all. Senior Dutch medical students were invited through their faculty to complete an online survey on Disaster Medicine, training and knowledge. This reported knowledge was tested by a mixed set of 10 theoretical and practical questions. With a mean age of 25.5 years and 60 % females, 999 participants completed the survey. Of the participants, 51 % considered that Disaster Medicine should absolutely be taught in the regular medical curriculum and only 2 % felt it as useless; 13 % stated to have some knowledge on disaster medicine. Self-estimated capability to deal with various disaster situations varied from 1.47/10 in nuclear incidents to 3.92/10 in influenza pandemics. Self-estimated knowledge on these incidents is in the same line (1.71/10 for nuclear incidents and 4.27/10 in pandemics). Despite this limited knowledge and confidence, there is a high willingness to respond (ranging from 4.31/10 in Ebola outbreak over 5.21/10 in nuclear incidents to 7.54/10 in pandemics). The case/theoretical mix gave a mean score of 3.71/10 and raised some food for thought. Although a positive attitude, 48 % will place contaminated walking wounded in a waiting room and 53 % would use iodine tablets as first step in nuclear decontamination. Of the participants, 52 % even believes that these tablets protect against external radiation, 41 % thinks that these tablets limit radiation effects more than shielding and 57 % believes that decontamination of chemical victims consists of a specific antidote spray in military cabins. Despite a high willingness to respond, our students are not educated for disaster situations.

Objective To identify the factors that prevent or hinder access to mental healthcare services for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. Design An umbrella review was conducted on scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-syntheses published between January 2013 and December 2023. Data sources The databases searched (on 11 December 2023) included PubMed (via NCBI, including MEDLINE), Embase (via Embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (via Cochrane Library). Search strings were categorised as concepts, wherein concept one was population (refugees, asylum seekers and migrants), concept two was mental health services and concept three was the type of review (systematic review, meta-analysis, scoping review or literature review). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Reviews were included if study participants were refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. Additionally, mental health-providing services or organisations and mental health providers were included. Excluded study participants were people with a migration background and second- or third-generation migrants. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers screened the identified articles on title and The 48 full-text articles were assessed in detail against inclusion and exclusion criteria by the two researchers and one person from the Belgian Superior Health Council. Results 18 reviews were included. The extensive literature review identified various factors that prevent and restrict access to mental healthcare services for individuals with a recent migration background. Among the eight concepts of barriers, the most frequently mentioned were stigma and stigmatisation, language and communication challenges, financial obstacles, cultural barriers (including religious beliefs and faith) and issues with service delivery. Additionally, differences in culture, education and gender were recognised as factors limiting access to mental health services. Recommendations for policy and practice included implementing a multidisciplinary and multi-agency approach to facilitate access for newly arriving migrants and refugees, increasing financial allocations for translation and interpretation services, enabling policies to promote mental health utilisation and introducing educational programmes at the grassroot level among migrants and refugees. Conclusion Policy implementation should address the identified barriers and be routinely assessed for efficacy in service delivery and uptake. Future research should focus on enabling the utilisation of mental healthcare services among migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

URGENT is a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) based nurse-led care model in the emergency department (ED) with geriatric follow-up after ED discharge aiming to prevent unplanned ED readmissions. A quasi-experimental study (sequential design with two cohorts) was conducted in the ED of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium). Dutch-speaking, community-dwelling ED patients aged 70 years or older were eligible for enrolment. Patients in the control cohort received usual care. Patient in the intervention cohort received the URGENT care model. A geriatric emergency nurse conducted CGA and interdisciplinary care planning among older patients identified as at risk for adverse events (e.g. unplanned ED readmission, functional decline) with the interRAI ED Screener© and clinical judgement of ED staff. Case manager follow-up was offered to at risk patients without hospitalization after index ED visit. For inpatients, geriatric follow-up was guaranteed on an acute geriatric ward or by the inpatient geriatric consultation team on a non-geriatric ward if considered necessary. Primary outcome was unplanned 90-day ED readmission. Secondary outcomes were ED length of stay (LOS), hospitalization rate, in-hospital LOS, 90-day higher level of care, 90-day functional decline and 90-day post-hospitalization mortality. Almost half of intervention patients (404/886 = 45.6%) were categorized at risk. These received on average seven advices. Adherence rate to advices on the ED, during hospitalization and in community care was 86.1, 74.6 and 34.1%, respectively. One out of four at risk patients without hospitalization after index ED visit accepted case manager follow-up. Unplanned ED readmission occurred in 170 of 768 (22.1%) control patients and in 205 of 857 (23.9%) intervention patients (p = .11). The intervention group had shorter ED LOS (12.7 h versus 19.1 h in the control group; p < .001), but higher rate of hospitalization (70.0% versus 67.0% in the control group; p = .003). The URGENT care model shortened ED LOS and increased the hospitalization rate, but did not prevent unplanned ED readmissions. A geriatric emergency nurse could improve in-hospital patient management, but failed to introduce substantial out-hospital case-management. The protocol of this study was registered retrospectively with ISRCTN ( ISRCTN91449949 ; registered 20 June 2017).

Older people in the emergency department (ED) represent a growing population and increasing proportion of the workload in the ED. This study investigated the support for frail older people in the ED, by exploring the collaboration between the geriatric services (GS) and the EDs in Belgian hospitals. An electronic cross-sectional survey in all Belgian hospitals with an ED (n = 100) about care aspects, collaboration, education and infrastructure for older patients in the ED was collected. Descriptive analyses were performed at national level. Forty-nine of 100 surveys were completed by the GS. The heads of the ED returned only 12 incomplete questionnaires and these results are therefore not reported. Twenty-six of the 49 heads of GSs (53%) indicated that there was an agreement, mainly informal, between the geriatric and the emergency department concerning the management of older people on the ED. A geriatrician was available for specific problems, by phone or in person, in 96% of the EDs during daytime on weekdays. Almost all responding hospitals (96%) had an inpatient geriatric consultation team, of which 85% was available for specific problems at the ED, by phone or bedside during the daytime on weekdays. Twenty-nine heads of the GSs (59%) reported that older patients were screened at ED admission during the day to identify ‘at risk’ patients. The results of the screening were used in the context of further treatment (76%), to decide on hospital admission (27%), or to justify admission on a geriatric ward (55%). In the year preceding the survey, 25% of the responding hospitals had organised geriatric training for ED healthcare workers. Thirty-four heads of the GS (69%) felt that the infrastructure of the ED was insufficient to give high-quality care for older persons. Collaborations between EDs and GS are emerging in Belgium, but are currently rather limited and not yet sufficiently embedded in the ED care. Exploratory studies are necessary to identify how these collaborations can be improved.