HomeLarge Type Edition
HOME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 60:1002-1006 (2005)
© 2005 The Gerontological Society of America

Neglect Assessment in Urban Emergency Departments and Confirmation by an Expert Clinical Team

Terry Fulmer1,, Gregory Paveza2, Carla VandeWeerd2, Lisa Guadagno1, Susan Fairchild1, Robert Norman3, Ivo Abraham1 and Marguarette Bolton-Blatt1

1 College of Nursing, New York University.
2 James and Jennifer Harrell Center, Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa.
3 Pulmonary Disease, New York University School of Medicine.

Address correspondence to Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, The Erline Perkins McGriff Professor and Head, College of Nursing, New York University, 246 Greene Street, New York, NY 10003-6677. E-mail: terryfulmer.don{at}nyu.edu

Background. Elder neglect accounts for over 70% of all adult protective services reports in the nation annually, and it has been estimated that there are over 70,000 new cases each year. The purpose of this study was to conduct elder neglect research in the emergency department (ED), using a dyadic vulnerability/risk-profiling framework for elder neglect.

Methods. Patients were recruited through four EDs in New York and Tampa from the beginning of February 2001 through the end of September 2003. Demographics, a Mini-Mental Status Examination score, and an initial elder assessment screen were collected. The diagnosis of neglect was then made by a Neglect Assessment Team (NAT) comprising a nurse, physician, and social worker, with extensive clinical experience in elder neglect.

Results. Of the 3664 ED screens of adults 70 years and older, 405 (11%) met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate. Neglect was diagnosed by the NAT in 86 of the 405 cases reviewed. Demographic differences between neglect versus no neglect cases were examined using Fisher's exact test, and differences emerged between the 2 groups.

Conclusion. This study documents the underreporting of cases of neglect as evidenced by differences in diagnoses by screeners versus experts. The research assistants screened positive for neglect in 5% (N = 22) of the 405 cases. The NAT made the diagnosis of neglect in 22% (86/389) of the cases. This markedly different rate of neglect may mean that ED screens are important but may underestimate the true number of cases. Conversely, an NAT may make the diagnosis of neglect in an older adult more often given a higher sensitivity and a more robust knowledge base of the problem.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical SciencesHome page
C. B. Dyer
Neglect Assessment in Elderly Persons
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., August 1, 2005; 60(8): 1000 - 1001.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by The Gerontological Society of America.