New York City is currently experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19, a highly contagious and potentially deadly virus, which is particularly dangerous for older adults. This pandemic has led to public health policies including social distancing and stay-at-home orders. We explore here the impact of this unique crisis on victims of elder mistreatment and people at risk of victimization. The COVID-19 outbreak has also had a profound impact on the organizations from many sectors that typically respond to protect and serve victims of elder mistreatment. We examine this impact and describe creative solutions developed by these organizations and initial lessons learned in New York City to help inform other communities facing this pandemic and provide guidance for future crises.

Background An emergency department (ED) visit provides a unique opportunity to identify elder abuse and initiate intervention, but emergency providers rarely do. To address this, we developed the Vulnerable Elder Protection Team (VEPT), an ED‐based interdisciplinary consultation service. We describe our initial experience in the first two years after the program launch. Methods We launched VEPT in a large, urban, academic ED/hospital. From 4/3/17 to 4/2/19, we tracked VEPT activations, including patient characteristics, assessment, and interventions. We compared VEPT activations to frequency of elder abuse identification in the ED before VEPT launch. We examined outcomes for patients evaluated by VEPT, including change in living situation at discharge. We assessed ED providers' experiences with VEPT via written surveys and focus groups. Results During the program's initial two years, VEPT was activated and provided consultation/care to 200 ED patients. Cases included physical abuse (59%), neglect (56%), financial exploitation (32%), verbal/emotional/psychological abuse (25%), and sexual abuse (2%). Sixty‐two percent of patients assessed were determined by VEPT to have high or moderate suspicion for elder abuse. Seventy‐five percent of these patients had a change in living/housing situation or were discharged with new or additional home services, with 14% discharged to an elder abuse shelter, 39% to a different living/housing situation, and 22% with new or additional home services. ED providers reported that VEPT made them more likely to consider/assess for elder abuse and recognized the value of the expertise and guidance VEPT provided. Ninety‐four percent reported believing that there is merit in establishing a VEPT Program in other EDs. Conclusion VEPT was frequently activated and many patients were discharged with changes in living situation and/or additional home services, which may improve safety. Future research is needed to examine longer‐term outcomes.