Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022
Vulnerable Elder Protection Team: Initial experience of an emergency department-based interdisciplinary elder abuse program.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosen Tony, Elman Alyssa, Clark Sunday, Gogia Kriti, Stern Michael E, Mulcare Mary R, Makaroun Lena K, Gottesman Elaine, Baek Daniel, Pearman Morgan, Sullivan Michelle, Brissenden Kelly, Shaw Amy, Bloemen Elizabeth M, LoFaso Veronica M, Breckman Risa, Pillemer Karl, Sharma Rahul, Lachs Mark S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: An emergency department (ED) visit provides a unique opportunity to identify elder abuse and initiate intervention, but emergency providers rarely do. To address this, we developed the Vulnerable Elder Protection Team (VEPT), an ED-based interdisciplinary consultation service. We describe our initial experience in the first two years after the program launch.
METHODS: We launched VEPT in a large, urban, academic ED/hospital. From 4/3/17 to 4/2/19, we tracked VEPT activations, including patient characteristics, assessment, and interventions. We compared VEPT activations to frequency of elder abuse identification in the ED before VEPT launch. We examined outcomes for patients evaluated by VEPT, including change in living situation at discharge. We assessed ED providers' experiences with VEPT via written surveys and focus groups.
RESULTS: During the program's initial two years, VEPT was activated and provided consultation/care to 200 ED patients. Cases included physical abuse (59%), neglect (56%), financial exploitation (32%), verbal/emotional/psychological abuse (25%), and sexual abuse (2%). Sixty-two percent of patients assessed were determined by VEPT to have high or moderate suspicion for elder abuse. Seventy-five percent of these patients had a change in living/housing situation or were discharged with new or additional home services, with 14% discharged to an elder abuse shelter, 39% to a different living/housing situation, and 22% with new or additional home services. ED providers reported that VEPT made them more likely to consider/assess for elder abuse and recognized the value of the expertise and guidance VEPT provided. Ninety-four percent reported believing that there is merit in establishing a VEPT Program in other EDs.
CONCLUSION: VEPT was frequently activated and many patients were discharged with changes in living situation and/or additional home services, which may improve safety. Future research is needed to examine longer-term outcomes.
METHODS: We launched VEPT in a large, urban, academic ED/hospital. From 4/3/17 to 4/2/19, we tracked VEPT activations, including patient characteristics, assessment, and interventions. We compared VEPT activations to frequency of elder abuse identification in the ED before VEPT launch. We examined outcomes for patients evaluated by VEPT, including change in living situation at discharge. We assessed ED providers' experiences with VEPT via written surveys and focus groups.
RESULTS: During the program's initial two years, VEPT was activated and provided consultation/care to 200 ED patients. Cases included physical abuse (59%), neglect (56%), financial exploitation (32%), verbal/emotional/psychological abuse (25%), and sexual abuse (2%). Sixty-two percent of patients assessed were determined by VEPT to have high or moderate suspicion for elder abuse. Seventy-five percent of these patients had a change in living/housing situation or were discharged with new or additional home services, with 14% discharged to an elder abuse shelter, 39% to a different living/housing situation, and 22% with new or additional home services. ED providers reported that VEPT made them more likely to consider/assess for elder abuse and recognized the value of the expertise and guidance VEPT provided. Ninety-four percent reported believing that there is merit in establishing a VEPT Program in other EDs.
CONCLUSION: VEPT was frequently activated and many patients were discharged with changes in living situation and/or additional home services, which may improve safety. Future research is needed to examine longer-term outcomes.