Effectiveness of the “Timed Up and Go” (TUG) and the Chair Test as Screening Tools for Geriatric Fall Risk Assessment in the ED

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and the Chair test as screening tools in the Emergency Department (ED), stratified by sex. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma center. After consent, subjects performed the TUG and the Chair test. Subjects were contacted for phone follow-up and asked to self-report interim falling. RESULTS: Data from 192 subjects were analyzed. At baseline, 71.4% (n = 137) screened positive for increased falls risk based on the TUG evaluation, and 77.1% (n = 148) scored below average on the Chair test. There were no differences by patient sex. By the six-month evaluation 51 (26.6%) study participants reported at least one fall. Females reported a non-significant higher prevalence of falls compared to males (29.7% versus 22.2%, p = 0.24). TUG test had a sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 56.2%-82.5%), a specificity of 28.4% (95% CI: 21.1%-36.6%), a positive predictive (PP) value 26.3% (95% CI: 19.1%-34.5%) and a negative predictive (NP) value of 72.7% (95% CI: 59.0%-83.9%). Similar results were observed with the Chair test. It had a sensitivity of 78.4% (95% CI: 64.7%-88.7%), a specificity of 23.4% (95% CI: 16.7%-31.3%), a PP value 27.0% (95% CI: 20.1%-34.9%) and a NP value of 75.0% (95% CI: 59.7%-86.8%). No significant differences were observed between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: There were no sex specific significant differences in TUG or Chair test screening performance. Neither test performed well as a screening tool for future falls in the elderly in the ED setting

Do incoming residents vary in measures of emotional status even prior to residency training?

Objectives: To determine whether Empathy, Emotional Intelligence, and Burnout scores differ by specialty in incoming residents. Methods: This is a single-site, prospective, cross-sectional study. Three validated survey instruments, the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Maslach Burnout Inventory, and Emotional and Social Competency Inventory, were written into a survey platform as a single 125-question Qualtrics survey. Over three academic years, 2015-2017, 229 incoming residents across all specialties were emailed the survey link during orientation. Residents were grouped by incoming specialty with anonymity assured. A total of 229 responses were included, with 121 (52.8%) identifying as female. Statistical analysis was performed using the Analysis of Variance or Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi-Square or Fisher\u27s Exact test, and Independent Samples t-test or Mann Whitney U test. A Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. Results: Family Medicine had a higher median Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy score (127) compared to Emergency Medicine (115), (U=767.7, p=0.0330). Maslach Burnout Inventory depersonalization and personal accomplishment subcategory scores showed a significant difference between specialties when omnibus tests were performed, but pairwise comparisons with emergency medicine residents showed no differences. Differences were found in the Maslach Burnout Inventory categories of Depersonalization (χ Conclusions: Differences in measures of well-being exist across specialties, even prior to the start of residency training. The implication for educators of residency training is that some incoming residents, regardless of specialty, already exhibit troublesome features of burnout, and resources to effectively deal with these residents should be developed and utilized