Abstract
Background
The observational Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED) study found 40% of older people attending for care to be living with frailty. Older people with frailty have poorer outcomes from emergency care. Current best practice calls for early identification of frailty and holistic multidisciplinary assessment. This survey of FEED sites explores variations in frailty-attuned service definitions and provision.
Methods
This cross-sectional survey included study sites across Europe identified through snowball recruitment. Site co-ordinators (healthcare professionals in emergency and geriatric care) were surveyed online using Microsoft Forms. Items covered department and hospital capacity, frailty and delirium identification methods, staffing, and frailty-focused healthcare services in the ED. Descriptive statistics were reported.
Results
A total of 68 sites from 17 countries participated. Emergency departments had median 30 (IQR 21–53) trolley spaces. Most defined "older people" by age 65+ (64%) or 75+ (25%). Frailty screening was used at 69% of sites and mandated at 38%. Night-time staffing was lower compared to day-time for nursing (10 [IQR 8–14] vs. 14 [IQR 10–18]) and physicians (5 [IQR 3–8] vs. 10 [IQR 7–15]). Most sites had provision for ED frailty specialist services by day, but these services were rarely available at night. Sites mostly had accessible facilities; however, hot meals were rarely available at night (18%).
Conclusion
This survey demonstrated variability in case definitions, screening practices, and frailty-attuned service provision. There is no unanimous definition for older age, and while the Clinical Frailty Scale was commonly used, this was rarely mandated or captured in electronic records. Frailty services were often unavailable overnight. Appreciation of the variation in frailty service models could inform operational configuration and workforce development.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Introduction
The European population is ageing, and more older people are living with frailty. Frailty is present in 40% of older people (age 65+) attending European Emergency Departments (ED), varying broadly between countries from 26 to 54% [1, 2]. It is recognised that this population is often poorly served by and have poor experiences through traditional emergency care models [3, 4]. The complex nature of this cohort means they often present with undifferentiated complaints and are vulnerable to under-triage and ultimately poorer outcomes, including more frequent mortality, admissions, and longer stays [5,6,7]. Geriatric emergency medicine has emerged as a field of subspecialty interest with its own training curriculum, clinical guidance, and research agenda [8,9,10].
The core tenet of geriatric emergency medicine is a holistic approach which adopts the principles of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) [11, 12]. Current, ‘traditional’, emergency care systems are not designed to deliver this at scale, typically best-serving people with single and specific injuries or illnesses rather than enabling multidisciplinary evaluation of complex and interacting problems [13, 14].
Accordingly, healthcare service models worldwide are being reconfigured to better provide for the needs of older people living with frailty. European guidelines provide advice on optimising ED care models for older people, and international accreditation programmes advocate for core processes and services [15]. However, practice and outcomes are known to vary across European EDs [16]. It is unclear to what extent these are currently adjusted to recommendations. Insight into differences in current approaches for frailty identification and service availability across European EDs could contribute to improving practice and provision.
Therefore, the aim of this project is to report on methods in use for the definition, identification, and management of frailty using a survey of European emergency departments. This project was a planned secondary objective of the FEED study, which sought primarily to evaluate the prevalence of Frailty in European Emergency Departments [2].
Methods
Design, recruitment and participants
This was a planned survey study performed during preparation for the FEED observational phase [17]. The FEED study recruited European emergency departments using snowball sampling (new units are recruited by other units to form part of the sample) through mailing lists (European Taskforce for Geriatric Emergency Medicine), research networks (European Geriatric Medicine Society and European Society for Emergency Medicine), and social media. A site co-ordinator at each participating department was invited to complete a survey on their service characteristics. Site co-ordinators were healthcare professionals (doctors or advanced clinical practitioners) working in emergency and geriatric care. Hospitals that did not participate in the FEED study were not included in this survey.
Survey instrument and administration
The survey items were designed by consensus with eleven experts in geriatric emergency medicine. All were working in Europe and held current or recent leadership positions in special interest groups on acute frailty care. Items were in English and considered department and hospital capacity, frailty and delirium identification methods, typical professional staffing, and frailty-attuned healthcare services available in the ED (Supplementary Material 1). The name of the site co-ordinator was requested to minimise the risk of site duplication.
Administration of the survey was online using Microsoft Forms in the period May–June 2023. Due to the expected heterogeneity of health service models, a document of abbreviations and definitions was prepared and provided to participants (Supplementary Material 2). Three reminder emails at fortnightly intervals were sent to sites identified as potential participants, and recruited site co-ordinators were asked to complete the survey prior to collecting data for the prevalence phase of the FEED study. Service characteristics survey data were retained for those sites withdrawing from the observational phase.
Analysis
Site characteristics were described by country, hospital and emergency department capacity (bed spaces), and the emergency department’s physician and nursing staff levels. Frailty-attuned services were described by use (recommended or mandatory) of screening tools for frailty and delirium, presence or availability of specialist professional services, and availability of departmental facilities. Summary statistics (frequencies, medians with interquartile range, and means with standard deviation as appropriate) were prepared using Stata version 17 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA) and charts using R with packages ggplot2 and ggmap (R Core Team 2022). The manuscript was prepared with reference to the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (Supplemental Material 3). As this was a convenience sample, no power analysis was performed. For continuous variables, unanswered questions were considered missing and no imputation was performed. For categorical variables, responses “no” or “none” were imputed for unanswered questions.
Regulatory approval
The study received ethical approval (University of Leicester ref 39346) and the protocol was deposited online [17]. Site co-ordinators obtained additional approvals for participation where required by local and national policies and legislation.
Results
Site characteristics
Professionals representing sixty-eight sites in sixteen countries participated in the survey. Sites were spread across Europe, although North-Eastern and Scandinavian countries were not represented (Fig. 1). Departments varied widely in capacity, with a median number of 30 (IQR 21–53) trolley spaces.
Sites most commonly defined “older people" as being aged 65+ (64%) or 75+ (25%). The Clinical Frailty Scale was used at 69% of the sites, but screening for frailty was a mandatory element of care only at 38% (Table 1). Delirium screening also was rarely mandated (24%). The 4AT was the most frequently used delirium screening tool (31%). Half of the sites using electronic health records (EHR) did not have fields to capture frailty or delirium assessments.
The respondents’ emergency departments had one-third lower nursing staffing at night-time (10 [IQR 8–14] vs. 14 [IQR 10–18]). Meanwhile the physician staffing overnight was half that in daytime (5 [IQR 3–8] vs. 10 [IQR 7–15]) (Table 2).
Provision of frailty-attuned services
One- to two-thirds of sites had frailty specialist services present or available to attend the ED during the day, including social workers (72%), geriatricians and geriatric specialist nurses (63%, 49%), pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists (57%, 63%, 47%), and palliative care specialists and discharge nurses (56%, 41%) (Table 2). These services were mostly unavailable overnight (0–12% presence). The frequency of sites providing for 1:1 care support was similar at day (29%) and night (22%).
There was little diurnal variation in the availability of most department environmental facilities, with 94% having accessible toilets, 73% having pressure-relieving mattresses available, and 78% (65% overnight) able to access walking aids. Hot meals were rarely available overnight (18%).
Discussion
This survey investigated for the first time the type of specific assessment and services for geriatric patients in European emergency departments and has demonstrated heterogeneity in case definitions, screening standards, and provision of frailty-attuned services.
Current literature in geriatric emergency medicine focuses on frailty and delirium as predictive markers for poorer outcomes from healthcare [18, 19], and yet fewer than half of sites mandated screening for these. While mandatory screening with the Clinical Frailty Score was low, this was consistent with systematic review findings around the instrument’s implementation [20]. With worldwide population ageing, presentations to emergency departments by people living with frailty will inevitably increase. While protocols and policies have been developed and implemented to improve the collaboration with other specialists, delays in people reaching these services due to resource pressures mean there remains a gap in healthcare needing to be filled by professionals competent in geriatric emergency medicine [8, 9].
Most participating departments did not have access to frailty-specialised healthcare professionals overnight, and fewer than one-fifth were able to provide hot food to a person attending at night. In the context of a worldwide crisis in emergency department crowding it is highly likely that older people living with frailty were attending and remaining in the participating departments overnight, prompting uncomfortable reflections on the likelihood of hospital-associated harms and deterioration [21].
Limitations
The study aimed to represent Europe, and yet participation was mostly in North-Western and Southern countries. This could perhaps be due to differences in frailty prevalence and perspectives, and scope of practice and priorities for emergency care across nations. Where we corresponded with potential sites including in Scandinavia and North-Eastern Europe (suggesting the recruitment strategy reached these regions), non-participation was frequently attributed to the study’s summer timing and difficulties in obtaining local regulatory approvals.
The findings presented here may not accurately portray populations and practices in Scandinavian and North-Eastern European countries or indeed in other continents. However, this study follows national-level inquiry as the first European-level evaluation of emergency frailty care provision [22]. Further knowledge might be gained through additional international observation.
Response to surveys is often by those who have existing interest in the topic. In this case, respondents were likely to have been special interest group members or following geriatric emergency medicine themed social media accounts. Participation may therefore have been by professionals working at sites with better-established frailty practices and resources. The present study might then overestimate the true presence of frailty-attuned services and practices.
Clinical implication
The results of this study reinforce the need for uniform practices. Despite collegiate collaboration and ambition, disparate targets, quality criteria, and data recording limit the potential for large scale comparative studies. International professional associations might therefore work towards a common core set of definitions and standards, ultimately to enable outcomes research and improvement using routine data. Implementation of established standards may improve geriatric emergency care provision through service reconfiguration and audit. While the impact on patient-reported outcomes has not yet been evaluated, the North American Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation scheme has led to reduced admissions and healthcare costs (23, 24). These guidelines have now also been adopted in several Asian, European, and South American centres. While outcomes might be more feasibly compared using consistent core definitions and practice, the precise operationalisation currently does and inevitably will continue to vary between settings due to local demographics and available health service resources. Service configuration and innovation will require evaluation and ongoing monitoring for meaningful local effect as well as for contribution to wider scale endeavours. Emergency departments with lower provision of frailty-attuned services could refer to these results when seeking support for additional hospital resourcing.
Research implication
On a research perspective, the issue of the impact on patients’ outcomes remains. Future studies should look at the association between frailty-attuned services and patient-reported outcomes. Researchers should also consider healthcare providers’ perspectives. While this survey was filled by each site’s representative, their vision might not be the same as others working daily in the ED (physicians, nurses, allied health professionals), especially on the importance of those services and their utilisation of frailty assessment and delirium screening results.
Conclusion
This European survey demonstrated variability in case definitions, screening practices, and frailty-attuned service provision. There is no unanimous definition for older age. While the Clinical Frailty Scale was commonly used, this was rarely mandated or captured in electronic records. Provision of frailty-attuned specialist services was infrequent overnight. Appreciation of the variation in frailty service models could inform operational configuration and workforce development.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study (dataset, Stata code, R code) are available from the corresponding author at reasonable request.
References
O’Caoimh R, Sezgin D, O’Donovan MR, Molloy DW, Clegg A, Rockwood K, et al. Prevalence of frailty in 62 countries across the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level studies. Age Ageing. 2021;50(1):96–104.
European Taskforce on Geriatric Emergency Medicine collaborators. Prevalence of Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED): an international flash mob study. Eur Geriatr Med. 2024.
Keeble E, Roberts HC, Williams CD, Van Oppen J, Conroy SP. Outcomes of hospital admissions among frail older people: a 2-year cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(685):e555–60.
Regen E, Phelps K, Van Oppen JD, Riley P, Lalseta J, Martin G, et al. Emergency care for older people living with frailty: patient and carer perspectives. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(10):726–32.
Lucke JA, Mooijaart SP, Conroy S, Blomaard LC, De Groot B, Nickel CH. Mortality risk for different presenting complaints amongst older patients assessed with the Manchester triage system. Eur Geriatr Med. 2022;13(2):323–8.
Elliott A, Taub N, Banerjee J, Aijaz F, Jones W, Teece L, et al. Does the Clinical Frailty Scale at Triage predict outcomes from emergency care for older people? Ann Emerg Med. 2021;77(6):620–7.
Karamercan MA, Dundar DZ, Slagman A, Ergin M, Janssens KAC, Fabbri A, et al. Epidemiology of geriatric patients presenting to emergency departments in Europe: EGERS study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2023;30(2):117–24.
Mooijaart SP, Nickel CH, Conroy SP, Lucke JA, van Tol LS, Olthof M, et al. A European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine: a modified Delphi study. Eur Geriatr Med. 2021;12(2):413–22.
Conroy S, Nickel CH, Jónsdóttir AB, Fernandez M, Banerjee J, Mooijaart S, et al. The development of a European curriculum in Geriatric Emergency Medicine. European Geriatric Medicine. 2016;7(4):315–21.
European Taskforce on Geriatric Emergency Medicine. GeriEM guideline posters 2022. Available from: https://posters.geriemeurope.eu/
Hogervorst VM, Buurman BM, De Jonghe A, van Oppen JD, Nickel CH, Lucke J, et al. Emergency department management of older people living with frailty: a guide for emergency practitioners. Emerg Med J. 2021;38(9):724–9.
Conroy S, Carpenter C, Banerjee J. Silver Book II. Society BG, editor. 2021.
Heeren P, Hendrikx A, Ceyssens J, Devriendt E, Deschodt M, Desruelles D, et al. Structure and processes of emergency observation units with a geriatric focus: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):95.
Preston L, van Oppen JD, Conroy SP, Ablard S, Buckley Woods H, Mason SM. Improving outcomes for older people in the emergency department: a review of reviews. Emerg Med J. 2021;38(12):882–8.
Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines Task Force. Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines. Available from: https://www.acep.org/globalassets/sites/geda/documnets/geda-guidelines.pdf.
Garcia-Martinez A, Artajona L, Aguilo S. Identifying needs of older patients at the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med. 2023;30(6):453.
van Oppen JD. Frailty in European Emergency Departments (the FEED study). protocols.io; 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.ewov1ok97lr2/v1
Chen F, Liu L, Wang Y, Liu Y, Fan L, Chi J. Delirium prevalence in geriatric emergency department patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;59:121–8.
Kabell Nissen S, Rueegg M, Carpenter CR, Kaeppeli T, Busch JM, Fournaise A, et al. Prognosis for older people at presentation to emergency department based on frailty and aggregated vital signs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(4):1250–8.
Fehlmann CA, Nickel CH, Cino E, Al-Najjar Z, Langlois N, Eagles D. Frailty assessment in emergency medicine using the Clinical Frailty Scale: a scoping review. Intern Emerg Med. 2022;17(8):2407–18.
Pearce S, Marchand T, Shannon T, Ganshorn H, Lang E. Emergency department crowding: an overview of reviews describing measures causes, and harms. Intern Emerg Med. 2023;18(4):1137–58.
Heeren P, Lombaert L, Janssens P, Islam F, Flamaing J, Sabbe M, et al. A survey on the availability of geriatric-friendly protocols, equipment and physical environment across emergency departments in Flanders, Belgium. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23(1):264.
Hwang U, Dresden SM, Vargas-Torres C, Kang R, Garrido MM, Loo G, et al. Association of a Geriatric Emergency Department Innovation Program With Cost Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e2037334.
Haynesworth A, Gilmer TP, Brennan JJ, Weaver EH, Tolia VM, Chan TC, et al. Clinical and financial outcome impacts of comprehensive geriatric assessment in a level 1 geriatric emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(9):2704–14.
Acknowledgements
Collaborators
European Taskforce for Geriatric Emergency Medicine:
Study protocol and management committee:
Timothy Coats (UK), Simon Conroy (UK), Bas de Groot (Netherlands), Pieter Heeren (Belgium), Stephen Lim (UK), Jacinta Lucke (Netherlands), Simon Mooijaart (Netherlands), Christian H Nickel (Switzerland), Rose Penfold (UK), Katrin Singler (Germany), James D van Oppen (UK).
Survey site co-ordinators:
Pieter Heeren (Belgium), Françoise Steenebruggen (Belgium), Valerie Sterckx (Belgium), Ivan Brdar (Croatia), Pavla Libicherová (Czech Republic), Frédéric Balen (France), Céline Bianco (France), Xavier Dubucs (France), Jérémy Guenezan (France), Stefanie Apfelbacher (Germany), Othon Fraidakis (Greece), Varvara Fyntanidou (Greece), Szabolcs Gaál (Hungary), Anna Björg Jónsdóttir (Iceland), Maria Cremin (Ireland), Mary Kelly (Ireland), Claire McAteer (Ireland), Kara Mc Loughlin (Ireland), Elizabeth Moloney (Ireland), Ciara Sankey (Ireland), Lisa Sibthorpe (Ireland), Maria Beatrice Zazzara (Italy), Rene Alexander Camilleri (Malta), Paul Zammit (Malta), Sophie M Coffeng (Netherlands), Jacinta Lucke (Netherlands), Rosalinde Smits (Netherlands), Miguel Alberto Rizzi Bordigoni (Spain), Santiago Castejón-Hernández (Spain), Lupe del Rocio Coronel Chumbi (Spain), Sira Aguiló Mir (Spain), Eduardo Enrique Padilla (Spain), Wojciech Rojewski-Rojas (Spain), Davide Fadini (Switzerland), Natalie Sabrina Jegerlehner (Switzerland), Christian H Nickel (Switzerland), Enrico Zucconi (Switzerland), Hüseyin Avni Demir (Turkey), Zerrin Defne Dundar (Turkey), Ramazan Güven (Turkey), Mehmet Akif Karamercan (Turkey), Fulya Kose (Turkey), Özgür Söğüt (Turkey), Ismail Tayfur (Turkey), Lucy Abbott (UK), James Adams (UK), Janice Bernardo (UK), Leanne Brown (UK), Joel Burton (UK), Renate Claassen (UK), Jamie Cooper (UK), Ruth Heyes (UK), Calvin Lightbody (UK), Jane Masoli (UK), David Mawhinney (UK), Stephen McKenzie (UK), Nicola Moultrie (UK), Angeline Price (UK), Rajendra Raman (UK), Apirthan Rajasingam (UK), Lauren Rothwell (UK), Ravishankar Prabhakar Shashikala (UK), Erica Smith (UK), Vittoria Sorice (UK), James van Oppen (UK), James Wallace (UK), Tom Young (UK).
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Geneva. This phase of the FEED study received no specific funding. The subsequent observational phase received funding from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. JvO received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (Doctoral Research Fellowship 300901).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
Conceptualization: JDvO. Data curation: JDvO. Formal analysis: CAF, JDvO. Funding acquisition: JDvO. Investigation: JDvO. Methodology: JDvO. Project administration: JDvO. Software: CAF. Supervision: JDvO. Validation: JDvO. Visualiszation: JF. Writing—original draft: CAF, KM, JDvO. Writing—review and editing: CAF, KM, JF, JDvO.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
No patient was involved in this study. Only site coordinators were requested to fill the survey, with the purpose being for research.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Fehlmann, C.A., Mc Loughlin, K., Cosgriff, E.J. et al. Service provision for Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED): a survey of operational characteristics. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 32, 64 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01234-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01234-w