Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Using the Bergman-Paris Question to screen seniors in the emergency department

  • Antoine Laguë (a1) (a2) (a3), Philippe Voyer (a1) (a2) (a3), Marie-Christine Ouellet (a1) (a2) (a4), Valérie Boucher (a1) (a2) (a3), Marianne Giroux (a1) (a2) (a3), Mathieu Pelletier (a2) (a5), Émilie Gouin (a6), Raoul Daoust (a7), Simon Berthelot (a1) (a2), Michèle Morin (a1) (a2) (a3), Thien Tuong Minh Vu (a8) (a9) (a10), Jacques Lee (a11), Audrey-Anne Brousseau (a12) (a13), Marie-Josée Sirois (a1) (a2) (a3) and Marcel Émond (a1) (a2) (a3)...

Abstract

Objectives

In the fast pace of the Emergency Department (ED), clinicians are in need of tailored screening tools to detect seniors who are at risk of adverse outcomes. We aimed to explore the usefulness of the Bergman-Paris Question (BPQ) to expose potential undetected geriatric syndromes in community-living seniors presenting to the ED.

Methods

This is a planned sub-study of the INDEED multicentre prospective cohort study, including independent or semi-independent seniors (≥65 years old) admitted to hospital after an ED stay ≥8 hours and who were not delirious. Patients were assessed using validated screening tests for 3 geriatric syndromes: cognitive and functional impairment, and frailty. The BPQ was asked upon availability of a relative at enrolment. BPQ’s sensitivity and specificity analyses were used to ascertain outcomes.

Results

A response to the BPQ was available for 171 patients (47% of the main study’s cohort). Of this number, 75.4% were positive (suggesting impairment), and 24.6% were negative. To detect one of the three geriatric syndromes, the BPQ had a sensitivity of 85.4% (95% CI [76.3, 92.0]) and a specificity of 35.4% (95% CI [25.1, 46.7]). Similar results were obtained for each separate outcome. Odds ratio demonstrated a higher risk of presence of geriatric syndromes.

Conclusion

The Bergman-Paris Question could be an ED screening tool for possible geriatric syndrome. A positive BPQ should prompt the need of further investigations and a negative BPQ possibly warrants no further action. More research is needed to validate the usefulness of the BPQ for day-to-day geriatric screening by ED professionals or geriatricians.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Using the Bergman-Paris Question to screen seniors in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Using the Bergman-Paris Question to screen seniors in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Using the Bergman-Paris Question to screen seniors in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence to: Dr. Marcel Émond, CHU de Québec - Hôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus, 1401, 18e rue, H-608, Québec, QC, G1J 1Z4; Email: marcelemond1@me.com

References

Hide All
1. Le Commissaire à la santé et au bien-être (CSBE). Les Urgences au Québec: Évolution de 2003-2004 à 2012-2013; 2014. Available at: http://www.csbe.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/www/2014/Urgences/CSBE_Rapport_Urgences_2014.pdf.
2. MSSS. Approche adaptée à la personne agée en milieu hospitalier; 2011. Available at: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/2010/10-830-03.pdf.
3. Rockwood, K, Song, X, MacKnight, C, Bergman, H, Hogan, DB, McDowell, I, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005;173(5):489-495.
4. Lin, JS, O’Connor, E, Rossom, RC, et al. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews. Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
5. Lee, J, Sirois, MJ, Moore, L, et al. Return to the ED and hospitalisation following minor injuries among older persons treated in the emergency department: predictors among independent seniors within 6 months. Age Ageing 2015;44(4):624-629.
6. Inouye, SK, Studenski, S, Tinetti, ME, Kuchel, GA. Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55(5):780-791.
7. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI), Canadian Frailty Network (CFN). Acute Care for Elders (ACE) 12-month quality improvement collaborative – Prospectus (Contract No 1); 2016. Available at: http://www.fcass-cfhi.ca/WhatWeDo/ace.
8. American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines Task Force. Geriatric emergency department guidelines. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63(5):e7-e25.
9. Bernstein, E. Repeat visits by elder emergency department patients: sentinel events. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4(6):538-539.
10. Caporuscio, C, Monette, J, Gold, S, Monette, M, O’Rourke, K. Ability of the “Bergman-Paris” Question to Detect Dementia in Community-Dwelling Older People. Can Geriatr J 2009;12(3):101-103.
11. Rozzini, R, Sabatini, T, Barbisoni, P, Trabucchi, M. How to measure comorbidity in elderly persons. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57(3):321-322.
12. Knaus, WA, Draper, EA, Wagner, DP, Zimmerman, JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13(10):818-829.
13. Knopman, DS, Roberts, RO, Geda, YE, Pankratz, VS, Christianson, TJ, Petersen, RC, et al. Validation of the telephone interview for cognitive status-modified in subjects with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia. Neuroepidemiology 2010;34(1):34-42.
14. Duff, K, Tometich, D, Dennett, K. The Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status is More Predictive of Memory Abilities Than the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2015;28(3):193-197.
15. Fillenbaum, GG, Smyer, MA. The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire. J Gerontol 1981;36(4):428-434.
16. Haywood, KL, Garratt, AM, Fitzpatrick, R. Older people specific health status and quality of life: a structured review of self-assessed instruments. J Eval Clin Pract 2005;11(4):315-327.
17. Sirois, MJ, Émond, M, Ouellet, MC, et al. Cumulative incidence of functional decline after minor injuries in previously independent older Canadian individuals in the emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61(10):1661-1668.
18. Kahlon, S, Pederson, J, Majumdar, SR, Belga, S, Lau, D, Fradette, M, et al. Association between frailty and 30-day outcomes after discharge from hospital. CMAJ 2015;187(11):799-804.
19. Inouye, SK, van Dyck, CH, Alessi, CA, Balkin, S, Siegal, AP, Horwitz, RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990;113(12):941-948.
20. Monette, J, Galbaud du Fort, G, et al. Evaluation of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) as a screening tool for delirium in the emergency room. Gen Hosp Psych 2001;23(1):20-25.
21. Bishop, YM, Fienberg, SE, Holland, PW. Discrete multivariate analysis: theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
22. Hosmer, DW Jr, Lemeshow, S, Sturdivant, RX. Applied logistic regression. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
23. Parke, B, Beaith, A, Slater, L, Clarke, AM. Contextual factors influencing success or failure of emergency department interventions for cognitively impaired older people: a scoping and integrative review. J Adv Nurs 2011;67(7):1426-1448.
24. Cullen, B, O’Neill, B, Evans, JJ, Coen, RF, Lawlor, BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007;78(8):790-799.
25. Carpenter, CR, Bassett, ER, Fischer, GM, et al. Four sensitive screening tools to detect cognitive dysfunction in geriatric emergency department patients: brief Alzheimer’s Screen, Short Blessed Test, Ottawa 3DY, and the caregiver-completed AD8. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18(4):374-384.
26. Goldstein, J, Travers, A, Hubbard, R, Moorhouse, P, Andrew, MK, Rockwood, K. Assessment of older adults by emergency medical services: methodology and feasibility of a care partner Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CP-CGA). CJEM 2014;16(5):370-377.
27. Herr, M, Ankri, J. A critical review of the use of telephone tests to identify cognitive impairment in epidemiology and clinical research. J Telemed Telecare 2013;19(1):45-54.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed