AbstractBackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are pressured environment where patients with supportive and palliative care needs may not be identified. We aimed to test the predictive ability of the CriSTAL (Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care) checklist to flag patients at risk of death within 3 months who may benefit from timely end‐of‐life discussions.MethodsProspective cohorts of >65‐year‐old patients admitted for at least one night via EDs in five Australian hospitals and one Irish hospital. Purpose‐trained nurses and medical students screened for frailty using two instruments concurrently and completed the other risk factors on the CriSTAL tool at admission. Postdischarge telephone follow‐up was used to determine survival status. Logistic regression and bootstrapping techniques were used to test the predictive accuracy of CriSTAL for death within 90 days of admission as primary outcome. Predictability of in‐hospital death was the secondary outcome.ResultsA total of 1,182 patients, with median age 76 to 80 years (IRE‐AUS), were included. The deceased had significantly higher mean CriSTAL with Australian mean of 8.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.7–8.6) versus 5.7 (95% CI = 5.1–6.2) and Irish mean of 7.7 (95% CI = 6.9–8.5) versus 5.7 (95% CI = 5.1–6.2). The model with Fried frailty score was optimal for the derivation (Australian) cohort but prediction with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was also good (areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.825 and 0.81, respectively). Values for the validation (Irish) cohort were AUROC = 0.70 with Fried and 0.77 using CFS. A minimum of five of 29 variables were sufficient for accurate prediction, and a cut point of 7+ or 6+ depending on the cohort was strongly indicative of risk of death. The most significant independent predictor of short‐term death in both cohorts was frailty, carrying a twofold risk of death. CriSTAL's accuracy for in‐hospital death prediction was also good (AUROC = 0.795 and 0.81 in Australia and Ireland, respectively), with high specificity and negative predictive values.ConclusionsThe modified CriSTAL tool (with CFS instead of Fried's frailty instrument) had good discriminant power to improve certainty of short‐term mortality prediction in both health systems. The predictive ability of models is anticipated to help clinicians gain confidence in initiating earlier end‐of‐life discussions. The practicalities of embedding screening for risk of death in routine practice warrant further investigation.

OBJECTIVES:To determine the prevalence of frailty in Emergency Departments (EDs); examine the ability of frailty to predict poor outcomes post-discharge; and identify the most appropriate instrument for routine ED use.METHODS:In this prospective study we simultaneously assessed adults 65+yrs admitted and/or spent one night in the ED using Fried, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and SUHB (Stable, Unstable, Help to walk, Bedbound) scales in four Australian EDs for rapid recognition of frailty between June 2015 and March 2016.RESULTS:899 adults with complete follow-up data (mean (SD) age 80.0 (8.3) years; female 51.4%) were screened for frailty. Although different scales yielded vastly different frailty prevalence (SUHB 9.7%, Fried 30.4%, CFS 43.7%), predictive discrimination of poor discharge outcomes (death, poor self-reported health/quality of life, need for community services post-discharge, or reattendance to ED after the index hospitalization) for all identical final models was equivalent across all scales (AUROC 0.735 for Fried, 0.730 for CFS and 0.720 for SUHB).CONCLUSION:This study confirms that screening for frailty in older ED patients can inform prognosis and target discharge planning including community services required. The CFS was as accurate as the Fried and SUHB in predicting poor outcomes, but more practical for use in busy clinical environments with lower level of disruption. Given the limitations of objectively measuring frailty parameters, self-report and clinical judgment can reliably substitute the assessment in EDs. We propose that in a busy ED environment, frailty scores could be used as a red flag for poor follow-up outcome.

Background: Prognostic uncertainty inhibits clinicians from initiating timely end-of-life discussions and advance care planning. This study evaluates the efficacy of the CriSTAL (Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care) checklist in emergency departments. Methods: Prospective cohort study of patients aged >= 65 years with any diagnosis admitted via emergency departments in ten hospitals in Australia, Denmark and Ireland. Electronic and paper clinical records will be used to extract risk factors such as nursing home residency, physiological deterioration warranting a rapid response call, personal history of active chronic disease, history of hospitalisations or intensive care unit admission in the past year, evidence of proteinuria or ECG abnormalities, and evidence of frailty to be concurrently measured with Fried Score and Clinical Frailty Scale. Patients or their informal caregivers will be contacted by telephone around three months after initial assessment to ascertain survival, self-reported health, post-discharge frailty and health service utilisation since discharge. Logistic regression and bootstrapping techniques and AUROC curves will be used to test the predictive accuracy of CriSTAL for death within 90 days of admission and in-hospital death. Discussion: The CriSTAL checklist is an objective and practical tool for use in emergency departments among older patients to determine individual probability of death in the short-term. Its validation in this cohort is expected to reduce clinicians' prognostic uncertainty on the time to patients' death and encourage timely end-of-life conversations to support clinical decisions with older frail patients and their families about their imminent or future care choices.

To determine the validity of the Australian clinical prediction tool Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care (CRISTAL) based on objective clinical criteria to accurately identify risk of death within 3 months of admission among older patients.

OBJECTIVE To describe the practice and procedure of emergency intubation in Whanganui Emergency Department, New Zealand and determine whether intubation can be carried out effectively in the rural setting. METHOD A prospective observational study using the Australia and New Zealand Airway Registry proforma to collect data on the indication, lead intubator, first-pass success rate and peri-procedural complications. Data were also collected on whether a formal airway assessment was carried out and whether a checklist was used. RESULTS Twenty-three patients were intubated in the emergency department over a 12-month period. Sixty-two percent (14/23 cases) were medical encounters and the remaining 38% of indications due to a trauma. Head injury was the most common indication (23%). Ninety-two percent of primary intubators were emergency department-based Fellowship of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine or resident medical officers, while anaesthetic-trained operators accounted for just 8%. Our first-pass intubation success rate was 87% and 16% of cases had procedural complications. Sixty-five percent (15/23) carried out a formal airway assessment and a checklist was only used in 23% of cases. CONCLUSION This sequential case series is the first study looking at airway management in rural New Zealand emergency department airway practice. Overall intubation success rates were comparable to larger tertiary centres across Australasia. We have demonstrated that with adequate resources and adherence to interventions, a rural emergency department can provide effective airway management.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to describe the practice of endotracheal intubation across a range of Australasian EDs.METHODS:We established a multicentre airway registry (The Australian and New Zealand Emergency Department Airway Registry [ANZEDAR]) prospectively capturing intubations from 43 Australian and New Zealand EDs over 24 months using the ANZEDAR form. Information recorded included patient demographics, intubation indications, predicted difficulty, rapid sequence induction and endotracheal intubation preparation technique, induction drugs, airway adjuncts and complications. Factors associated with first attempt success were explored.RESULTS:Of the 3710 intubations captured, 3533 were in adults (95.2%), 2835 (76.4%) for medical and 810 (21.8%) for trauma indications. Overall, 3127 (84.3%) patients were successfully intubated at the first attempt; the majority by ED doctors (2654 [72.1%]). A total of 10 surgical airways were performed, all of which were successful cricothyroidotomies. Propofol, thiopentone or ketamine were used with similar frequency for induction, and suxamethonium was the most often used muscle relaxant. Adverse events were reported in 964 (26%), the majority involving desaturation or hypotension.CONCLUSION:Australasian ED doctors, predominantly specialist emergency physicians or trainees, perform the majority of ED intubations using rapid sequence induction as their preferred technique mainly for medical indications. First attempt success rate was not different between different types of EDs, and is comparable published international data. Complications are not infrequent, and are comparable to other published series. Monitoring and reporting of ED intubation practice will enable continued improvements in the safety of this high-risk procedure.