Vulnerable Elder Protection Team: Initial experience of an emergency department-based interdisciplinary elder abuse program.

TitleVulnerable Elder Protection Team: Initial experience of an emergency department-based interdisciplinary elder abuse program.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2022
AuthorsRosen T, Elman A, Clark S, Gogia K, Stern ME, Mulcare MR, Makaroun LK, Gottesman E, Baek D, Pearman M, Sullivan M, Brissenden K, Shaw A, Bloemen EM, LoFaso VM, Breckman R, Pillemer K, Sharma R, Lachs MS
JournalJ Am Geriatr Soc
Volume70
Issue11
Pagination3260-3272
Date Published2022 Nov
ISSN1532-5415
KeywordsAged, Elder Abuse, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Service, Hospital, Focus Groups, Humans, Referral and Consultation
Abstract

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.

DOI10.1111/jgs.17967
Alternate JournalJ Am Geriatr Soc
PubMed ID35860986
PubMed Central IDPMC9669128
Grant ListIK2 HX003330 / HX / HSRD VA / United States
K76 AG054866 / AG / NIA NIH HHS / United States
P30 AG022845 / AG / NIA NIH HHS / United States
UL1 TR002384 / TR / NCATS NIH HHS / United States