Summary
Usefulness of scoring risk for adverse outcomes in older patients with the Identification of Seniors at Risk scale and the Triage Risk Screening Tool: a meta-analysis
Rivero-Santana A, Del Pino-Sedeño T, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Vergara I, Serrano-Aguilar P
Affiliation of the authors
Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS). Islas Canarias, Spain. Centro de Investigación Biomédica de las Islas Canarias (CIBICAN). Islas Canarias, Spain. Red de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios y Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC). Spain. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Europea de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain. Unidad de investigación AP-OSIS Gipuzkoa; Donostia, Osakidetza. País Vasco, Spain. Instituto Biodonostia. País Vasco, Spain. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la salud (SESCS). Tenerife, Spain.
DOI
Quote
Rivero-Santana A, Del Pino-Sedeño T, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Vergara I, Serrano-Aguilar P. Usefulness of scoring risk for adverse outcomes in older patients with the Identification of Seniors at Risk scale and the Triage Risk Screening Tool: a meta-analysis. Emergencias. 2017;29:49-60
Summary
A considerable proportion of the geriatric population experiences unfavorable outcomes of hospital emergency department care. An assessment of risk for adverse outcomes would facilitate making changes in clinical management by adjusting available resources to needs according to an individual patient’s risk. Risk assessment tools are available,
but their prognostic precision varies. This systematic review sought to quantify the prognostic precision of 2 geriatric screening and risk assessment tools commonly used in emergency settings for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes (revisits, functional deterioration, readmissions, or death): the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) scale and the Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS, with no date limits, to find relevant studies. Quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 checklist (for quality
assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies). We pooled data for prognostic yield reported for the ISAR and TRST scores for each short- and medium-term outcome using bivariate random-effects modeling. The sensitivity of the ISAR scoring system as a whole ranged between 67% and 99%; specificity fell between 21% and 41%. TRST sensitivity ranged between 52% and 75% and specificity between 39% and 51%.We conclude that the tools currently used to assess risk of adverse outcomes in patients of advanced age attended in hospital emergency departments do not have adequate prognostic precision to be clinically useful.