Building a Rational Clinical Information System for Older Adults in Acute Care: The Role of the interRAI Acute Care Suite

Abstract

Prior research has identified gaps in the ability of hospital systems to efficiently and meaningfully characterize older adults with complex health needs. We recruited community-dwelling older adults presenting to 10 Emergency Departments (EDs) across Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland, Canada, from April 2017 to July 2018. We deployed a staged assessment strategy based on the interRAI Acute Care Suite to identify and characterize older adults at high risk of Alternate Level of Care designation. More than 5,700 patients underwent the ED-Screener, 53.3% of whom were not self-reliant. Subsequent focused screening and assessment identified 457 patients, 93.3% of whom were not self-reliant, and who had significant impairments in function, mobility, and cognition, as well as social vulnerability. A staged assessment approach based upon the interRAI Acute Care Suite can efficiently identify older adults with risk factors for Alternative Level of Care designation.

Introduction

With increasing age, many adults develop significant multimorbidity, disability, and frailty.^1,2 Our healthcare system is poorly configured to support people with complex and inter-related health and social needs who also represent its greatest users, leading to unstable health, accelerated functional decline, and hospitalization.^1,2 Hospital stays are often complicated by iatrogenic delirium and deconditioning, leading to delayed discharges, high readmission rates, and institutionalization.^3,4

In Canada, patients who no longer require hospital services but who cannot be discharged home receive an Alternate Level of Care (ALC) designation.⁵ In 2023-2024, there were over 3 million reported ALC days across Canada, representing 17% of all hospital days, predominantly for patients 65 years and over.⁶ High ALC rates lead to hospital and Emergency Department (ED) overcrowding and increased wait times, delays in ambulance off-loading, and ambulance diversion.⁷ Solutions intended to improve “patient flow” through hospitals include building more Long-Term Care (LTC) homes, though wait lists for these remain lengthy because of insufficient beds and post-pandemic human resource shortages.^8,9 Some provinces have created Transitional Care Units to provide short-term restorative care to people pending discharge home or to an LTC bed.¹⁰

A recent qualitative study of 300 hospital managers in Western Canada suggests that patient flow interventions for older patients with complex needs have been ineffective, in large part due to a mismatch between available resources and the characteristics and needs of ALC patients.^11,12 In contrast to relatively homogenous, less complex, and more easily described patient populations (e.g., joint replacement), the breadth of factors underlying the complexity of older ALC patients is perceived to be more difficult to capture, and this lack of pertinent data precludes the development of appropriate care pathways.¹¹

The patient characteristics associated with ALC designation among older adults fall into three main categories: functional, cognitive, and social vulnerability.^13-15 Acute care clinical information systems are generally poorly configured to capture such information, but expanding their capacity to do so must be done carefully to minimize the associated documentation burden.^16,17 A graduated strategy starting with brief case-finding followed by focused geriatric assessment has been proposed to efficiently identify at-risk older adults upon presentation to EDs and provide them timely senior-friendly care measures to avert further functional and cognitive decline and promote a safer discharge back home.^18,19

The objective of this manuscript is to determine whether such a staged strategy based upon the interRAI Acute Care Suite of instruments can identify older adults with functional, cognitive, and social vulnerability risk factors for ALC designation.

Methods

Study Design

We conducted a prospective cohort study evaluating the feasibility of a staged assessment strategy for older adults presenting to acute care hospital EDs across Canada. The strategy deploys three standardized interRAI instruments designed for acute care: (1) the ED-Screener²⁰; (2) the ED Contact Assessment (EDCA)²⁰; and (3) the Acute Care Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (AC-CGA).²¹ We describe the study using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist for cross-sectional studies and the Reporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) Extension.²² Ethics approval was obtained by relevant university and hospital research ethics boards.

Setting and Participants

We used convenience sampling to recruit older patients presenting to 10 EDs in Ontario (n = 5), Quebec (n = 4), and Newfoundland (n = 1) between April 2017 and July 2018. Participating EDs were in high volume urban centres except for one located in a small rural town. Trained research assistants at each ED, either seconded from the hospitals or hired for the project, recruited consenting community-dwelling individuals aged 75 years and older (or younger based on clinical judgment). Data collection began formally after a 1 to 2-month start-up period, with patients recruited over 4 to 6 months on weekdays between 8 AM and 7 PM. Participants were screened with the ED-Screener App implemented on Blackberry tablets provided by software vendor HealthIM. Those identified as high risk with the ED-Screener underwent further assessment with the more comprehensive EDCA. Patients expected to die in the following 24 hours or who did not speak English or French were excluded from the study. Patients confirmed as high risk with the EDCA and who were admitted to hospital underwent the AC-CGA. Clinicians at study sites were not provided with any assessment results.

Assessments were completed by research assistants. Where possible, research assistants also ascertained patient disposition, though not all sites were staffed to do so. Not all eligible patients initially assessed with the ED-Screener went on to further assessment according to the stage strategy because of variable availability of research assistants across sites, patient disposition occurring at all hours of the day, or because of illness severity. Figure 1 demonstrates the flow of patients through the study.

Figure 1.

Staged Assessment Strategy for the Study

Measurements and Variables

The ED-Screener, EDCA, and AC-CGA are interoperable instruments developed by interRAI, an international non-profit scientific organization specialized in developing standardized assessment systems for vulnerable populations (https://www.interrai.org/).

ED-Screener

The ED-Screener is based on the Assessment Urgency Algorithm (AUA), a 1-2 minute decision tree with 11 items assessing key health indicators, including cognition, mood, function, and caregiver burden.²⁰ An AUA score of 5 or 6 out of 6 predicts the need for comprehensive geriatric assessment with a sensitivity of 93%, positive predictive value of 82%, and false discovery rate of 18%.^23,24 The ED-Screener meets several core requirements for ED screening, having been shown to be easy to use, convenient, and feasible to implement.²⁵ Outcome variables of interest pertaining to the ED-Screener are the AUA score and Self-Reliance Index (SRI), a global measure of function defined as the presence of impairments in completing basic activities of daily living or in cognitive skills for daily decision-making.²⁶

EDCA

The EDCA is a 15-20 minute 39-item clinical assessment instrument to support care and disposition planning for older adults presenting to the ED, including those with complex needs who would benefit from targeted referrals to community or specialized geriatric services.²⁰ Completed by a trained assessor using clinical information from multiple available sources, the EDCA provides risk indicators and health status measures for cognition, delirium, mood, substance abuse, function, falls, pain, frailty, and institutional risk. The EDCA has high inter-rater reliability and good to excellent content and predictive validity. Outcome variables of interest pertaining to the EDCA include the AUA, functional indicators (SRI, capacity to perform activities of daily living with or without set-up assistance), mobility indicators (needing supervision or assistance for stairs, any fall in last 90 days), cognitive indicators (supervision for medication management, not independent with daily decision-making, any behaviour symptoms, and acute change in mental status), and social vulnerability indicators (caregiver overwhelmed, patient does NOT have a support person that is positive towards discharge).

AC-CGA

The AC-CGA is a 60-75 minute 110-item instrument for the comprehensive geriatric assessment of hospitalized older adults with complex needs.²¹ It provides risk indicators and health status measures for cognition, delirium, mood, instrumental and basic activities of daily living, frailty, pain, wounds, malnutrition, falls, and institutional care.²¹ The AC-CGA has undergone extensive reliability and validity testing.^27-31 Outcome variables of interest include functional indicators (SRI, Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy,^32,33 Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Capacity Hierarchy,³³ mobility indicators (needing supervision or assistance for stairs, any fall in last 90 days), cognitive indicators (Cognitive Performance Scale),³⁴ behaviour symptoms, and acute change in mental status) and social vulnerability indicators (patient does NOT have a support person that is positive towards discharge).

Data Sources

Participating facilities recorded data in their own electronic systems and shared de-identified data with the research team. Research assistants used a data collection system for the interRAI ED Contact Assessment provided by HealthIM to enter de-identified assessment information. These data were shared with the research team and stored on the interRAI Canada server at the University of Waterloo.

Bias

We obtained written informed consent from all participants or a verified substitute decision maker. This allowed us to include individuals living with cognitive impairment, who are often excluded from ED research. Research assistants were instructed to follow informed consent procedures for their specific hospital, including plain-language discussions about confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw. We aimed to recruit outside major urban areas, including a hospital in a smaller rural town. We confirm that the results align with our expectations and previous literature.

Study Size

Duration of recruitment and numbers of participants were pre-specified by each site based on their unique resource limitations, and thus there were significant differences in sample size between sites. Because of low recruitment at some sites, we present data for the overall sample only.

Quantitative Variables

Before analyzing the data, we collapsed several variables to ensure privacy, prevent small cell counts that could cause analytical problems, and ensure that differences between levels would allow for clinically meaningful comparisons. Grouped variables included organization, age, sex, and outcomes.

Statistical Methods

Descriptive statistics were used to depict the samples according to each specific assessment instrument. The research team used SAS Enterprise Guide Version 9.4 to conduct all statistical analyses (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Data Access and Cleaning Methods

We had full access to the database used to create the study population. Since there were minimal missing data (<5%), we removed observations with missing data from the analysis.

Results

A total of 5,707, 1,075, and 457 ED-Screeners, EDCAs, and AC-CGAs were completed, respectively, of which 678 (11.9%) were under 75 years of age. Table 1 presents the functional, cognitive, and social vulnerability characteristics of patients in the study. Figure 2 describes the flow of patients in the study.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Patients Assessed With the ED-Screener, EDCA, and AC-CGA

ED-Screener	All		Women		Men
ED-Screener	n	Age %85+	n	Age %85+	n	Age %85+
All	5,707	39.5%	3,247	43.2%	2,460	34.6%
AUA 1-3 (self-reliant)	2,663	82.4 ± 5.3	1,423	82.6 ± 5.5	1,240	81.7 ± 5.1
AUA 4-6 (not self-reliant)	3,044	85.4 ± 6.0	1,824	86.1 ± 6.2	1,220	84.4 ± 5.5

EDCA^a	n	Age	n	Age	n	Age
All	1,075	83.5 ± 9.3	627	83.7 ± 10.0	444	83.3 ± 8.4
AUA 1-2	33	83.9 ± 6.9	18	85.5 ± 7.2	15	82.1 ± 6.4
AUA 3-4	201	82.8 ± 10.7	117	82.8 ± 10.8	82	82.7 ± 10.6
AUA 5-6	841	83.6 ± 9.1	492	83.8 ± 9.8	347	83.4 ± 7.9
Not self-reliant	93.1%	83.7 ± 9.2	587	83.8 ± 10.7	410	83.5 ± 7.8
Pre-morbid functional indicators
Needing more than set-up assistance for any Activity of Daily Living	91.8%	85.3 ± 6.2	92.4%	85.6 ± 6.3	91.0%	84.9 ± 5.9
Pre-morbid mobility indicators
Needing supervision or assistance for stairs	54.6%	85.5 ± 6.4	51.9%	85.6 ± 6.7	58.2%	85.8 ± 5.9
Any fall in the last 90 days	48.8%	85.4 ± 6.5	43.7%	85.4 ± 6.8	55.8%	85.4 ± 6.2
Either	74.9%	85.6 ± 6.3	71.8%	85.9 ± 6.4	79.1%	85.2 ± 6.2
Cognitive indicators
Supervised for medication management	80.7%	85.6 ± 6.0	83.9%	85.7 ± 6.1	76.3%	85.5 ± 6.0
NOT independent with daily decision-making (pre-morbid)	29.7	85.7 ± 6.4	27.9%	85.6 ± 6.4	32.1%	85.8 ± 6.6
NOT independent with daily decision-making (admission)	41.7	85.7 ± 6.3	39.8%	86.0 ± 6.2	44.2%	85.2 ± 6.6
Any behaviour symptoms	7.0%	86.8 ± 6.1	7.6%	86.4 ± 6.4	6.2%	87.7 ± 6.1
Acute change in mental status	23.5%	86.5 ± 5.6	24.4%	86.0 ± 6.1	22.4%	87.5 ± 4.4
Social indicators
Caregiver overwhelmed	47.0%	85.7 ± 5.8	45.6%	86.0 ± 6.4	48.8%	85.2 ± 4.8
Does NOT have support person positive towards discharge	17.8%	85.7 ± 6.2	18.7%	86.8 ± 6.0	16.5%	83.4 ± 5.9
Either	55.3%	83.9 ± 9.2	57.7%	84.7 ± 9.2	42.3%	83.5 ± 9.1

AC-CGA
All	457	84.9 ± 7.7	268	85.2 ± 7.6	184	84.4 ± 7.8
Admission functional indicators
Not self-reliant	93.3%	85.0 ± 7.6	95.5%	85.2 ± 7.6	92.9%	84.8 ± 7.7
ADLH^b 0	15.7%	83.1 ± 8.4	16.7%	84.6 ± 8.5	14.1%	80.6 ± 7.9
ADLH 1-2	31.1%	84.4 ± 7.4	32.3%	85.1 ± 6.8	29.4%	83.3 ± 8.3
ADLH 3-6	53.2%	85.7 ± 7.6	50.9%	85.4 ± 7.9	56.5%	86.0 ± 7.2
IADLCH^c 0	1.6%	81.6 ± 7.6	1.9%	83.1 ± 8.3	1.1%	77.8 ± 5.6
IADLCH 1-2	11.3%	83.7 ± 8.5	12.3%	85.1 ± 7.5	9.8%	81.3 ± 9.8
IADLCH 3-6	87.2%	85.1 ± 7.6	85.8%	85.2 ± 7.7	89.1%	84.9 ± 7.5
Admission mobility indicators
Needing supervision or assistance for stairs	90.6%	85.3 ± 7.6	91.9%	85.5 ± 7.5	91.3%	85.0 ± 7.7
Any fall in last 90 days	52.5%	86.0 ± 7.3	48.5%	86.6 ± 7.1	59.8%	85.2 ± 7.4
Either	93.3%	85.2 ± 7.6	94.1%	85.5 ± 7.5	94.6%	84.9 ± 7.6
Admission cognitive indicators
CPS^d 0	31.8%	82.9 ± 8.4	33.5%	83.2 ± 8.3	29.4%	82.2 ± 8.4
CPS 1-2	45.0%	85.4 ± 7.2	43.5%	86.0 ± 6.5	47.3%	84.5 ± 7.9
CPS 3-6	23.2%	86.6 ± 7.3	23.0%	86.3 ± 8.1	23.4%	87.1 ± 6.0
Any behaviour symptoms	11.0%	86.0 ± 8.1	8.6%	85.5 ± 7.6	14.7%	86.4 ± 8.6
Acute change in mental status from usual	25.7%	85.5 ± 7.3	24.4%	85.0 ± 7.3	28.3%	86.2 ± 7.2
Social indicators
Does NOT have support person positive towards discharge	21.3%	83.8 ± 8.1	23.1%	83.7 ± 8.3	18.7%	84.1 ± 7.8

Legend: AUA = Assessment Urgency Algorithm; EDCA = Emergency Department Contact Assessment; AC-CGA = Acute Care Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment; ADLH = Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy (scored from 0 to 6, 0 being independent and 6 completely dependent); IADLCH = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy (scored from 0 to 6, 0 being independent and 6 completely dependent); CPS = Cognitive Performance Scale (scored from 0 to 6, 0 being intact and 6 comatose)

^a4 patients had “other” gender

^b6 patients missing data

^c7 patients missing data

^d6 patients missing data

Figure 2.

Patient Flow Through the Study

ED-Screener and EDCA

Slightly over 53% of patients assessed with the ED-Screener were not self-reliant based on AUA scores of 4 to 6; 45.3% had an AUA of 5 or 6 and were eligible for EDCA assessment. Correspondence between AUA scores from the ED-Screener and EDCA was very good: 166 ED-Screener patients with an initial AUA of 5-6 were found to have a lower AUA with the EDCA, though 70% of these were an AUA of 4.

Of the 1,075 patients undergoing an EDCA, almost 84% were not self-reliant. High proportions of these patients faced challenges in one or more of the three risk factor categories for ALC designation if hospitalized. Pre-morbid functional impairment was common, with 91.8% needing more than set-up assistance for at least one activity of daily living. Mobility problems affected 74.9%, with 48.8% having had falls in the last 90 days and 54.6% requiring supervision or assistance with stairs.

Challenges with cognitive function were common, with 80.7% requiring at least supervision for medication management. Pre-morbid daily decision-making was impaired in 29.7%, rising to 41.7% on presentation to the ED. An acute change in mental status, indicative of possible delirium, was present in 23.5% of patients assessed with the EDCA.

Finally, 55.3% of the patients had indicators of social vulnerability, with 47.0% of their informal caregivers endorsing feeling overwhelmed, and 17.8% not having a support person positive about a discharge home.

AC-CGA

Risk factors for ALC designation were even more common among the 457 patients assessed with the AC-CGA, 93.3% of whom were not self-reliant. Of these, 84.3% were dependent for at least one basic activity of daily living and 98.4% required assistance for at least one instrumental activity of daily living. Challenges with mobility were present in 93.3% of patients, with 90.6% requiring at least supervision with stairs and 52.5% having had a fall in the last 90 days.

Only 31.8% of the patients assessed with the AC-CGA had intact cognition as measured by a Cognitive Performance Scale of 0. An acute change in mental status, suggestive of delirium, was present in 25.7%. The proportion of those without a support person positive about discharge home was 21.3%.

Discussion

This manuscript demonstrates how staged assessment may offer an efficient approach to assess older adults presenting to EDs with a high burden of functional, cognitive, and social vulnerability, and thus identify those at risk of ALC designation. This approach minimizes documentation burden by using brief screeners to triage high-risk geriatric patients who require a lengthier comprehensive assessment. Initial screening identified slightly over half of patients as not self-reliant, a figure rising to over 93% of those receiving the comprehensive assessment. Virtually all those assessed with the AC-CGA had some degree of difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living and mobility problems, almost 70% had cognitive impairment, and over 20% did not have a support person feeling positive about discharge to the community.

These results build upon those from other studies demonstrating the advantages of staged assessment of older adults presenting to EDs, including one showing that patients at high risk based on the ED-Screener had an over 50% decreased odds of being discharged home.³⁵ In addition to minimizing assessment burden, a staged approach enables clinicians and decision-makers to concentrate efforts and limited human resources on those most at risk.¹⁹

These results demonstrate how staged assessment based on risk factors for ALC designation resolves the challenge of efficiently characterizing hospitalized older adults with complex health needs, as issue previously identified in the Western Canada hospital manager study.¹¹ The predictive capacity of the interRAI Acute Care Suite can inform care pathways to target high-risk patients with senior friendly interventions. In turn, hospitals can be enabled to prevent hospital-acquired functional decline and delirium, initiate proactive referrals to specialized geriatric services and inpatient rehabilitation, promote earlier discharge planning with home and community service to support informal caregivers and address social vulnerabilities, enhance rates of discharge home, and reduce readmissions.¹⁹

Implementing such a strategy requires that hospitals review existing documentation practices to identify redundancies and fill gaps. A survey of 11 hospitals in the state of Victoria, Australia found 152 standard assessment forms containing over 3,700 items, 17% of which were duplicated by multiple forms, with domains such as cognition inconsistently assessed.¹⁶ A similar survey in Nordic countries examined documentation practices pertinent to older adults among acute care physicians and nurses and found both significant redundancies and gaps in the documentation of key geriatric domains such as function and cognition.¹⁷ To capitalize on their full functionality, the interRAI instruments should be embedded into electronic medical records, and professional practice leads engaged to develop integrated interprofessional care pathways based upon their outputs. The investments required to update clinical information systems in hospitals should more than offset the maintenance of inefficient legacy systems that are ultimately more costly to patients and the healthcare system.¹⁶

An important limitation of this study is that not all patients could be fully assessed as per protocol for reasons noted above, and the assessments were conducted outside of routine clinical care. However, our results are consistent with those of other studies. Moreover, it is likely that a large proportion of patients who did not undergo the full AC-CGA assessment may have been too sick, thus underestimating the true efficiency of staged assessment.

Additional benefits of staged assessment based on acute care interRAI instruments is their high degree of compatibility with community-based interRAI instruments, such as the interRAI HC (home care), widely deployed across most of Canada.³⁶ Interoperability is required to create an integrated health information system, bringing hospital systems in line with those in home and community care, LTC, mental health, and other sectors, and allowing for a longitudinal understanding of a patient’s health trajectory. It facilitates information sharing and streamlines acute care documentation if community-based assessments are available.³⁷ Similarly, the use of interRAI instruments in acute care can facilitate referrals to home and community care services.³⁷ Home care and LTC assessments, even up to 6 months old, have been shown to still have utility in predicting hospital outcomes and ALC designation.^15,38

Conclusion

We have shown that staged assessment starting in hospital EDs and based on interRAI acute care instruments can efficiently identify older adults with risk factors for ALC designation.

Footnotes

Ethical Approval

Institutional review board approval was not required.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Canadian Frailty Network SIG(Fall)2014-2014F-31.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Prince

Guo

, et al. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet. 2015;385(9967):549-562. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61347-7

Beard

Officer

de Carvalho

, et al. The World report on ageing and health: a framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2016;387(10033):2145-2154. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4

Fogg

Griffiths

Meredith

Bridges

. Hospital outcomes of older people with cognitive impairment: an integrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(9):1177-1197. doi:10.1002/gps.4919

Loyd

Markland

Zhang

, et al. Prevalence of hospital-associated disability in older adults: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(4):455-461. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2019.09.015

Canadian Institute for Health Information . Guidelines to support ALC designation. https://www.cihi.ca/en/guidelines-to-support-alc-designation. Accessed 24 June 2025.

Canadian Institute for Health Information . Hospital stays in Canada, 2023–2024. https://www.cihi.ca/en/hospital-stays-in-canada-2023-2024. Accessed 24 June 2025.

Vanberkel

Carter

AJE

. A review on ambulance offload delay literature. Health Care Manag Sci. 2019;22(4):658-675. doi:10.1007/s10729-018-9450-x

Canadian Institute for Health Information . Recent staffing and quality indicator trends in Canadian long-term care. https://www.cihi.ca/en/recent-staffing-and-quality-indicator-trends-in-canadian-long-term-care. Accessed 24 June 2025.

Ontario Long Term Care Association . The data - long-term care in Ontario. https://www.oltca.com/about-long-term-care/the-data/. Accessed 24 June 2025.

10.

McGilton

Krassikova

Yeung

, et al. Exploring transitional care units in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative study. Innov Aging. 2024;8(Suppl 1):1242. doi:10.1093/geroni/igae098.3973

11.

Kreindler

. Six ways not to improve patient flow: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(5):388-394. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005438

12.

Kreindler

Aboud

Hastings

, et al. How do health systems address patient flow when services are misaligned with population needs? A qualitative study. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(8):1362-1372. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.36

13.

Costa

Poss

Peirce

Hirdes

. Acute care inpatients with long-term delayed-discharge: evidence from a Canadian health region. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:172. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-172

14.

Costa

Hirdes

. Clinical characteristics and service needs of alternate-level-of-care patients waiting for long-term care in Ontario hospitals. Healthc Policy. 2010;6(1):32-46.

15.

Arthur

Hirdes

Heckman

Morinville

Costa

Hébert

. Do premorbid characteristics of home care clients predict delayed discharges in acute care hospitals: a retrospective cohort study in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e038484. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038484

16.

Redley

Raggatt

. Use of standard risk screening and assessment forms to prevent harm to older people in Australian hospitals: a mixed methods study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(9):704-713. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005867

17.

Jensdóttir

Jónsson

Noro

, et al. Comparison of nurses' and physicians' documentation of functional abilities of older patients in acute care--patient records compared with standardized assessment. Scand J Caring Sci. 2008;22(3):341-347. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00534.x

18.

Sinha

Bessman

Flomenbaum

Leff

. A systematic review and qualitative analysis to inform the development of a new emergency department-based geriatric case management model. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(6):672-682. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.01.021

19.

Nova

Heckman

Gill-Chawla

, et al. Patterns of referral to interprofessional services among frail older adults presenting to emergency departments in Canada. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025;73(2):431-444. doi:10.1111/jgs.19253

20.

Costa

Hirdes

Ariño-Blasco

, et al. interRAI Emergency Department (ED) assessment system manual: for use with the interRAI ED screener (EDS) and ED contact assessment (ED-CA). Version 9.3. Washington, DC: interRAI; 2017.

21.

Gray

Ariño-Blasco

Berg

, et al. interRAI Acute Care for Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (AC-CGA) Form and User’s Manual. Version 9.3. Washington, DC: interRAI; 2017.

22.

Benchimol

Smeeth

Guttmann

, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885

23.

Mowbray

Heckman

Hirdes

, et al. Examining the utility and accuracy of the interRAI Emergency Department Screener in identifying high-risk older emergency department patients: a Canadian multiprovince prospective cohort study. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2023;4(1):e12876. doi:10.1002/emp2.12876

24.

Gretarsdottir

Jonsdottir

Sigurthorsdottir

, et al. Patients in need of comprehensive geriatric assessment: the utility of the InterRAI emergency department screener. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;54:100943. doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100943

25.

Moloney

O'Donovan

Carpenter

, et al. Core requirements of frailty screening in the emergency department: an international Delphi consensus study. Age Ageing. 2024;53(2):afae013. doi:10.1093/ageing/afae013

26.

Canadian Institute for Health Information . interRAI CA (IRRS): using the self-reliance index as a decision-support tool. https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/interrai-ca-irrs-self-reliance-index-jobaid-en.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2025.

27.

Carpenter

Teare

Steel

, et al. A new assessment for elders admitted to acute care: reliability of the MDS-AC. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2001;13(4):316-330.

28.

Martin-Khan

Gray

Brand

, et al. Patient outcome quality indicators for older persons in acute care: original development data using interRAI AC-CGA. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):527. doi:10.1186/s12877-024-04980-9

29.

Martin-Khan

Edwards

Wootton

, et al. Reliability of an online geriatric assessment procedure using the interRAI Acute Care Assessment System. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(9):2029-2036. doi:10.1111/jgs.14895

30.

Wellens

Van Lancker

Flamaing

, et al. Interrater reliability of the interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55(1):165-172. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2011.07.005

31.

Gray

Bernabei

Berg

, et al. Standardizing assessment of elderly people in acute care: the interRAI Acute Care instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(3):536-541. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01590.x

32.

Morris

Fries

Morris

. Scaling ADLs within the MDS. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54(11):M546-M553. doi:10.1093/gerona/54.11.m546

33.

Morris

Berg

Fries

Steel

Howard

. Scaling functional status within the interRAI suite of assessment instruments. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:128. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-13-128

34.

Morris

Fries

Mehr

, et al. MDS cognitive performance Scale. J Gerontol. 1994;49(4):M174-M182. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.4.m174

35.

Downer

Kokorelias

Costa

Melady

Sinha

. Describing and predicting trajectories of healthcare utilization among older adults presenting to an emergency department using the interRAI Emergency Department Screener. JGEM. 2023;4(4):2. doi:10.17294/2694-4715.1072

36.

Heckman

Gray

Hirdes

. Addressing health care needs for frail seniors in Canada: the role of interRAI instruments. CGS Journal of CME. 2013;3(1):8-16.

37.

Gray

Berg

Fries

, et al. Sharing clinical information across care settings: the birth of an integrated assessment system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:71. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-71

38.

Turcotte

Zalucky

Stall

, et al. Baseline frailty as a predictor of survival after critical care: a retrospective cohort study of older adults receiving home care in Ontario, Canada. Chest. 2021;160(6):2101-2111. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.009