Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of scoring methods in determining critical geriatric patients in the emergency department.
 Materials and Methods: This prospective study included patients aged over 65 who presented to the emergency department between 15 October 2014 and 15 November 2014. APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), REMS (Rapid Emergency Medicine Score), HOTEL (Hypotension, Oxygen saturation, low Temperature, ECG changes, and Loss of independence), VIEWS (Vital PAC Early Warning Score) and VIEWS-L (Vital PAC Early Warning Score with Lactate Level) were evaluated.
 Results: Of the 244 patients included in the study, the mean age of survivors was 75.69 ± 6.96 years, and the mean age of the mortal cases was 80.47 ± 6.63 years, 139 (57%) women. It was found that 30 (12.3%) of the patients included in the study died. The risk scores of the patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit were higher than those who were discharged or hospitalized. All risk scores in the mortality group were found to be significantly higher than the other patient groups.
 Conclusion: The study showed that risk scoring systems can be used safely in the evaluation of geriatric patients in the emergency department, to predict mortality and to select critically ill patients.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
