24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Delirium detection in older acute medical inpatients: a multicentre prospective comparative diagnostic test accuracy study of the 4AT and the confusion assessment method

      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

          Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

          Methods

          This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0–12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment.

          Results

          Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61–87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92–97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26–57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98–100%).

          Conclusions

          The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care.

          Trial registration

          International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093. Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1367-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

            Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard. Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients.

              Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 "combative" to -5 "unarousable") scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; kappa = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922-0.983) (kappa = 0.64-0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unresponsive," including all patient subgroups (r = 0.84-0.98). In the second phase, after implementation of RASS in our medical ICU, inter-rater reliability between a nurse educator and 27 RASS-trained bedside nurses in 101 patient encounters was high (r = 0.964, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.950; kappa = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 0.90) and very good for all subgroups (r = 0.773-0.970, kappa = 0.66-0.89). Correlations between RASS and the Ramsay sedation scale (r = -0.78) and the Sedation Agitation Scale (r = 0.78) confirmed validity. Our nurses described RASS as logical, easy to administer, and readily recalled. RASS has high reliability and validity in medical and surgical, ventilated and nonventilated, and sedated and nonsedated adult ICU patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Susan.Shenkin@ed.ac.uk
                Chris.Fox@uea.ac.uk
                m.godfrey@leeds.ac.uk
                najma.siddiqi@york.ac.uk
                s.goodacre@sheffield.ac.uk
                John.Young@bthft.nhs.uk
                atul.anand@ed.ac.uk
                alasdairgray@blueyonder.co.uk
                janet.hanley@nhs.net
                Allan.MacRaild@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk
                Jill.Steven@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk
                Polly.Black@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk
                Zoe.Tieges@ed.ac.uk
                Julia.Boyd@ed.ac.uk
                Jacqueline.Stephen@ed.ac.uk
                Christopher.Weir@ed.ac.uk
                0131 242 6481 , a.maclullich@ed.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                24 July 2019
                24 July 2019
                2019
                : 17
                : 138
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, GRID grid.4305.2, Geriatric Medicine, Edinburgh Delirium Research Group, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, , University of Edinburgh, ; Room S1642, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 51, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1092 7967, GRID grid.8273.e, Norwich Medical School, , University of East Anglia, ; Norfolk, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8403, GRID grid.9909.9, Elderly Care and Rehabilitation and Institute of Health Sciences, , University of Leeds, ; Leeds, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9668, GRID grid.5685.e, Department of Health Sciences, , University of York, Hull York Medical School, Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust, ; Bradford, UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), , University of Sheffield, ; Sheffield, UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8403, GRID grid.9909.9, Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, , University of Leeds, ; Leeds, UK
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, GRID grid.4305.2, Cardiovascular Sciences and Geriatric Medicine, , University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0388 0742, GRID grid.39489.3f, Emergency Medicine Research Group (EMERGE), , NHS Lothian, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [9 ]ISNI 000000012348339X, GRID grid.20409.3f, Health and Social Care, , Edinburgh Napier University, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [10 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, GRID grid.4305.2, Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, , University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3159-9370
                Article
                1367
                10.1186/s12916-019-1367-9
                6651960
                31337404
                72c7b62f-695d-4333-8591-460d86119162
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 February 2019
                : 13 June 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Award ID: 11/143/01.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Medicine
                delirium,diagnostic test accuracy,4at,confusion assessment method (cam),sensitivity,specificity,hospital

                Comments

                Comment on this article