Elder mistreatment is complex, with cases typically requiring integrated responses from social services, medicine, civil law, and criminal justice. Only limited research exists describing elder mistreatment prosecution and its impact. Researchers have not yet examined administrative prosecutorial data to explore mistreatment response, and no standardized analytic approach exists. We developed a rigorous, systematic methodologic approach to identify elder mistreatment cases in prosecutorial data from cases of crimes against victims aged ≥60. To do so, we operationalized elements of the accepted definition of elder mistreatment, including expectation of trust and vulnerability. We also designed an approach to categorize elder mistreatment cases, using the types of charges filed, into: financial exploitation, physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal/emotional/psychological abuse, and neglect. This standardized methodological approach to identify and categorize elder mistreatment cases in prosecution data is an important preliminary step in analyzing this potentially untapped source of useful information about mistreatment response.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately with respect to serious consequences ranging from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these issues have focused attention on how these resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies, for example, misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion that disfavors older adults in resource allocation decisions. This is a companion article to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement, Resource Allocation Strategies and Age-Related Considerations in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond. It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations that should be considered when developing strategies for allocation of scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. This review presents the legal and ethical background for the position statement and discusses these issues that informed the development of the AGS positions: (1) age as a determining factor, (2) age as a tiebreaker, (3) criteria with a differential impact on older adults, (4) individual choices and advance directives, (5) racial/ethnic disparities and resource allocation, and (6) scoring systems and their impact on older adults. It also considers the role of advance directives as expressions of individual preferences in pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1143-1149, 2020.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately, from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these needs have focused attention on how resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion, inappropriately disfavoring older adults. This statement represents the official policy position of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations to consider when developing strategies for allocating scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. Members of the AGS Ethics Committee collaborated with interprofessional experts in ethics, law, nursing, and medicine (including geriatrics, palliative care, emergency medicine, and pulmonology/critical care) to conduct a structured literature review and examine relevant reports. The resulting recommendations defend a particular view of distributive justice that maximizes relevant clinical factors and deemphasizes or eliminates factors placing arbitrary, disproportionate weight on advanced age. The AGS positions include (1) avoiding age per se as a means for excluding anyone from care; (2) assessing comorbidities and considering the disparate impact of social determinants of health; (3) encouraging decision makers to focus primarily on potential short-term (not long-term) outcomes; (4) avoiding ancillary criteria such as life-years saved and long-term predicted life expectancy that might disadvantage older people; (5) forming and staffing triage committees tasked with allocating scarce resources; (6) developing institutional resource allocation strategies that are transparent and applied uniformly; and (7) facilitating appropriate advance care planning. The statement includes recommendations that should be immediately implemented to address resource allocation strategies during COVID-19, aligning with AGS positions. The statement also includes recommendations for post-pandemic review. Such review would support revised strategies to ensure that governments and institutions have equitable emergency resource allocation strategies, avoid future discriminatory language and practice, and have appropriate guidance to develop national frameworks for emergent resource allocation decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1136-1142, 2020.

Improving emergency department (ED) care for older adults is a critical issue in emergency medicine. Institutions throughout the United States and Canada have recognized the growing need for a workforce of emergency physician (EP) leaders focused on clinical innovation, education, and research and have developed specialized fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM). We describe here the overview, structure, and curricula of these fellowships as well as successes and challenges they have encountered. Seven GEM fellowships are active in the United States and Canada, with five offering postresidency training only, one offering fellowship training during residency only, and one offering both. The backbone of the curriculum for all fellowships is the achievement of core competencies in various aspects of GEM, and each includes clinical rotations, teaching, and a research project. Evaluation strategies and feedback have allowed for significant curricular changes as well as customization of the fellowship experience for individual fellows. Key successes include an improved collaborative relationship with geriatrics faculty that has led to additional initiatives and projects and former fellows already becoming regional and national leaders in GEM. The most critical challenges have been ensuring adequate funding and recruiting new fellows each year who are interested in this clinical area. We believe that interest in GEM fellowships will grow and that opportunities exist to combine GEM fellowship training with a focus in research, administration, or health policy to create unique new types of highly impactful specialized training. Future research may include exploring former fellows' postfellowship experiences, careers, accomplishments, and contributions to GEM to better understand the impact of GEM fellowships.