DISPARITIES BETWEEN THREE DIFFERENT ELDER ABUSE ASSESSMENT METHODS

XinQi Dong,Melissa A. Simon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01576.x

2008-01-01

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract:To the Editor: We applaud the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society's attention to the global health issue of elder abuse and read with great enthusiasm the article by Cohen et al.1 The authors found in the cross-sectional analyses of hospitalized patients in Israel that there are disparities between self-reported elder abuse, professional identification for evident signs of abuse, and expanded indicator of abuse (E-IOA) assessment of high risk of abuse. The authors underscored significant disparities in detection methods and called for multiple assessment methods to simultaneously detect elder abuse. However, we have some thoughts and questions that might suggest the possibility of overestimation of elder abuse cases from the professional identification of evident signs of abuse and the E-IOA assessment of high risk for abuse. Elder self-neglect is the most common type of elder abuse reported to social services agencies in the United States, with studies suggesting that 45% to 77% of reports are of elder self-neglect cases.2 Although the study by Cohen et al. did not include self-neglect, we caution that the study design may have inadvertently captured self-neglect cases and thus potentially included self-neglect cases as elder abuse cases. The integral question is the definition of caregiver and caregiver responsibilities that might constitute neglect. The authors stated that information from the patient and family member determined caregiver status during the hospital stay, but the authors did not document how many patients were living with the caregiver or the amount of exposure the family member needed to have with the patient before determining caregiver status. Prior study has defined caregiver status by the total hours of caregiving exposure per week for the older person.3 In the study by Cohen et al., does the family member who lives with the patient have similar caregiving responsibility as a family member who does not live with the patient and visits only occasionally? Does the patient who lives alone and refuses self-care and adopts dangerous lifestyle choices resulting in self-neglect without the awareness of the family member experience caregiver neglect? We do not believe that the professional identification of evident signs of abuse or the E-IOA assessment of risk for abuse took these factors into consideration before the determination of neglect or its risks. Specifically, the authors stated that 52.1% of caregivers shared a household, but it is unclear whether that is shared with the patient. It appears that a significant proportion of caregivers live alone. Furthermore, it is unclear how many patients lived alone, especially because the authors stated that almost 48% of patients were not married. For patients who live alone, how did the study distinguish what is self-neglect from caregiver neglect when using the professional identification of evident signs of abuse or the E-IOA methods of assessing high risk for abuse. In the professional assessment of evident signs of abuse, the criteria for neglect included assessment using 12 items, such as under- or overmedication, hypothermia, poor hygiene, appropriate clothing, and signs of dehydration. These symptoms and signs can also be the presenting symptoms and signs of elder self-neglect.4 The same question applies to the E-IOA methods, where the indicators are about social isolation, and lack of support. These indicators are frequently found in elder self-neglect5 and could have increased the E-IOA risk scores of patients. Although the E-IOA indicators of risk for abuse are collected regarding caregivers, it is unclear whether these “caregivers” live with the patient and whether the caregivers have caregiving responsibilities. In cases in which patients live alone, without a clear definition of a responsible caregiver, there lies a great possibility for detecting self-neglect, rather than caregiver neglect, especially considering these two assessment methods. Given the authors' findings that caregiver neglect was the most frequently identified abuse category by professionals' assessment of evident signs of abuse (67.3%), it is possible that symptoms and signs of self-neglect could have unintentionally significantly driven up the number of cases by professional assessment of evident signs of elder abuse as well as higher high-risk scores of abuse. We believe that these above issues not only may widen the perceived disparities of three different elder abuse assessment methods, but also lead to other methodological issues of studying elder abuse.6 We agree that older people are more exposed to abuse than they are willing to admit, but we also feel that, until those issues are further clarified, we should proceed with caution before deciding on the degree of disparities in assessment methods and that three assessment tools are needed for optimal identification of abuse. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklists provided by the author and has determined that none of the authors have any financial or any other kind of personal conflicts wit this paper. Author Contributions: Drs. Dong and Simon both contributed to study concept and design, acquisition of subjects and data, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript. Sponsor's Role: None.