27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Attention! A good bedside test for delirium?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Routine delirium screening could improve delirium detection, but it remains unclear as to which screening tool is most suitable. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of the following screening methods (either individually or in combination) in the detection of delirium: MOTYB (months of the year backwards); SSF (Spatial Span Forwards); evidence of subjective or objective ‘confusion’.

          Methods

          We performed a cross-sectional study of general hospital adult inpatients in a large tertiary referral hospital. Screening tests were performed by junior medical trainees. Subsequently, two independent formal delirium assessments were performed: first, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) followed by the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 (DRS-R98). DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) criteria were used to assign delirium diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for each screening method.

          Results

          265 patients were included. The most precise screening method overall was achieved by simultaneously performing MOTYB and assessing for subjective/objective confusion (sensitivity 93.8%, 95% CI 82.8 to 98.6; specificity 84.7%, 95% CI 79.2 to 89.2). In older patients, MOTYB alone was most accurate, whereas in younger patients, a simultaneous combination of SSF (cut-off 4) with either MOTYB or assessment of subjective/objective confusion was best. In every case, addition of the CAM as a second-line screening step to improve specificity resulted in considerable loss in sensitivity.

          Conclusions

          Our results suggest that simple attention tests may be useful in delirium screening. MOTYB used alone was the most accurate screening test in older people.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Informant Questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): a review.

          The IQCODE is widely used as a screening test for dementia, particularly where the subject is unable to undergo direct cognitive testing or for screening in populations with low levels of education and literacy. This review draws together research on the psychometric properties and validity of the IQCODE. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using three databases. The review shows that the questionnaire has high reliability and measures a single general factor of cognitive decline. It validly reflects past cognitive decline, performs at least as well at screening as conventional cognitive screening tests, predicts incident dementia, and correlates with a wide range of cognitive tests. A particular strength is that the IQCODE is relatively unaffected by education and pre-morbid ability or by proficiency in the culture's dominant language. The disadvantage of the IQCODE is that it is affected by informant characteristics such as depression and anxiety in the informant and the quality of the relationship between the informant and the subject. Because the IQCODE provides information complementary to brief cognitive tests, harnessing them together can improve screening accuracy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium.

            The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. Mean and median DRS-R-98 scores significantly (P<0.001) distinguished delirium from each other group. DRS-R-98 total scores correlated highly with DRS, CTD, and CGI scores. Interrater reliability and internal consistency were very high. Cutoff scores for delirium are recommended based on ROC analyses (sensitivity and specificity ranges: total, 91%-100% and 85%-100%; severity, 86%-100% and 77%-93%, respectively, depending on the cutoffs or comparison groups chosen). The DRS-R-98 is a valid measure of delirium severity over a broad range of symptoms and is a useful diagnostic and assessment tool. The DRS-R-98 is ideal for longitudinal studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does this patient have delirium?: value of bedside instruments.

              Delirium occurs in many hospitalized older patients and has serious consequences including increased risk for death and admission to long-term care. Despite its importance, health care clinicians often fail to recognize delirium. Simple bedside instruments may lead to improved identification. To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of bedside instruments in diagnosing the presence of delirium in adults. Search of MEDLINE (from 1950 to May 2010), EMBASE (from 1980 to May 2010), and references of retrieved articles to identify studies of delirium among inpatients. Prospective studies of diagnostic accuracy that compared at least 1 delirium bedside instrument to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-based diagnosis made by a geriatrician, psychiatrist, or neurologist. There were 6570 unique citations identified with 25 prospectively conducted studies (N = 3027 patients) meeting inclusion criteria and describing use of 11 instruments. Positive results that suggested delirium with likelihood ratios (LRs) greater than 5.0 were present for the Global Attentiveness Rating (GAR), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Clinical Assessment of Confusion (CAC), and Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS). Normal results that decreased the likelihood of delirium with LRs less than 0.2 were calculated for the GAR, MDAS, CAM, DRS-R-98, Delirium Rating Scale (DRS), DOSS, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The Digit Span test and Vigilance "A" test in isolation have limited utility in diagnosing delirium. Considering the instrument's ease of use, test performance, and clinical importance of the heterogeneity in the confidence intervals (CIs) of the LRs, the CAM has the best available supportive data as a bedside delirium instrument (summary-positive LR, 9.6; 95% CI, 5.8-16.0; summary-negative LR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.09-0.29). Of all scales, the MMSE (score <24) was the least useful for identifying a patient with delirium (LR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0). The choice of instrument may be dictated by the amount of time available and the discipline of the examiner; however, the best evidence supports use of the CAM, which takes 5 minutes to administer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
                J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr
                jnnp
                jnnp
                Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0022-3050
                1468-330X
                October 2014
                25 February 2014
                : 85
                : 10
                : 1122-1131
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork , Cork, Ireland
                [2 ]Cork University Hospital , Cork, Ireland
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Limerick , Limerick, Ireland
                [4 ]Department of Geriatric Medicine, Waterford Regional Hospital , Waterford, Ireland
                [5 ]HRB Clinical Research Facility at UCC, University College Cork , Cork, Ireland
                [6 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Limerick , Limerick, Ireland
                [7 ]Cognitive Impairment Research Group, Centre for Interventions in Infection, Inflammation & Immunity (4i), Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick , Limerick, Ireland
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Niamh O'Regan, Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, St Finbarr's Hospital, Douglas Road, Cork, Ireland; niamhoregan78@ 123456yahoo.co.uk
                Article
                jnnp-2013-307053
                10.1136/jnnp-2013-307053
                4173985
                24569688
                8ab3095e-08ef-4d80-afb0-f72611460c9a
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

                History
                : 18 October 2013
                : 18 January 2014
                : 22 January 2014
                Categories
                1506
                1272
                Neuropsychiatry
                Research paper
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                patients-choice

                Surgery
                attention,cognition,neuropsychiatry
                Surgery
                attention, cognition, neuropsychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article