How can we identify patients with delirium in the emergency department?

Clinical assessment and short-term mortality prediction of older adults with altered mental status using RASS and 4AT tools

BACKGROUND

Altered mental status (AMS) in older adults is a common reason for admission to emergency departments (EDs) and usually results from delirium, stupor, or coma. It is important to proficiently identify underlying factors and anticipate clinical outcomes for those patients.

AIM

The primary objective of this study was to reveal and compare the clinical outcomes and etiologic factors of older patients with delirium, stupor, and coma. The secondary objective was to identify the 30-day mortality risk for those patients.

METHOD

The study was conducted as prospective and observational research. We included patients aged 65 years and older who presented with new-onset neurological and cognitive symptoms or worsening in baseline mental status. Patients who presented no change in their baseline mental status within 48 h and those who needed urgent interventions were excluded. Selected patients were assessed using RASS and 4AT tools and classified into three groups: stupor/coma, delirium, and no stupor/coma or delirium (no-SCD). Appropriate statistical tests were applied to compare these 3 groups. The 30-day mortality risks were identified by Cox survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier curve.

RESULTS

A total of 236 patients were eligible for the study. Based on their RASS and 4AT test scores: 56 (23.7%), 94 (40.6%), and 86 (36.4%) patients formed the stupor/coma, delirium and no-SCD groups, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the three groups for gender, mean age, and medical comorbidities. Neurological (34.7%), infectious (19.4%), and respiratory (19.0%) diseases were the leading factors for AMS. Post-hoc tests showed that CCI scores of the delirium (6, IQR = 3) and stupor/coma (7, IQR = 3) groups were not significantly different. The 30-day mortality rates of stupor/coma, delirium, and no-SCD groups were 42.%, 15.9%, and 12.8%, respectively (p < 0.005). The hazard ratio of the stupor/coma group was 2.79 (CI: 95%, 1.36-5.47, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

AMS remains a significant clinical challenge in EDs. Using the RASS and 4AT tests provides benefits and advantages for emergency medicine physicians. Neurological, infectious, and respiratory diseases can lead to life-threatening mental deterioration. Our study revealed that long-term mortality predictor CCI scores were quite similar among patients with delirium, stupor, or coma. However, the short-term mortality was significantly increased in the stupor/coma patients and they had 2.8 times higher 30-day mortality risk than others.

A Comprehensive Assessment of The Eight Vital Signs

The term “vital sign” has been assigned to various phenomena with the presumptive intent to emphasize their importance in health care resulting in the emergence of eight vital signs with multiple designations and overlapping terms. This review developed a case definition for vital signs and identified and described the fifth through eighth vital signs. PubMed/Medline, Google and biographical databases were searched using the individual Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms, vital sign and fifth, vital sign and sixth, vital sign and seventh, and vital sign eighth. The search was limited to human clinical studies written in English literature from 1957 up until November 30, 2021. Excluded were articles containing the term vital sign if used alone without the qualifier fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth or about temperature, blood pressure, pulse, and respiratory rate. One hundred ninety-six articles (122 for the fifth vital sign, 71 for the sixth vital sign, two for the seventh vital sign, and one for the eighth vital sign) constituted the final dataset. The vital signs consisted of 35 terms, classified into 17 categories compromising 186 unique papers for each primary authored article with redundant numbered vital signs for glucose, weight, body mass index, and medication compliance. Eleven terms have been named the fifth vital sign, 25 the sixth vital sign, three the seventh, and one as the eighth vital sign. There are four time-honored vital signs based on the case definition, and they represent an objective bedside measurement obtained noninvasively that is essential for life. Based on this case definition, pulse oximetry qualifies as the fifth while end-tidal CO2 and cardiac output as the sixth. Thus, these terms have been misappropriated 31 times. Although important to emphasize in patient care, the remainder are not vital signs and should not be construed in this manner.

Three-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM): French translation and cultural adaptation

PURPOSE

The routine use of validated diagnostic instruments is key to identifying delirious patients early and expediting care. The 3-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) instrument is a brief, easy to use, sensitive, and specific delirium assessment tool for hospitalized patients. We aimed to translate the original English version into French, and then adapt it to older high-risk patients.

METHODS

Translation and adaptation of the questionnaire were guided by an expert committee and the 3D-CAM instrument developer. During the translation phase, we achieved semantic and conceptual equivalence of the instrument by conducting forward and backward translations. During the adaptation phase, we assessed the face validity, clarity of wording, and ease of use of the translated questionnaire by administering it to 30 patients and their caregivers in peri-interventional and medical intermediate care units. During both phases, we used qualitative (goal and adequacy of the questionnaire) and quantitative (Sperber score, clarity score) criteria.

RESULTS

Translation: four items were judged inadequate and were revised until all reached a Sperber score of < 3/7. Face validity: 91% of patients thought the questionnaire was designed to assess memory, thoughts, or reasoning. Clarity: eight items required adjustments until all scored ≥ 9/10 for clarity. Ease of use: all bedside caregivers reported that the questionnaire was easy to complete after receiving brief instructions.

CONCLUSIONS

We produced a culturally adapted French version of the 3D-CAM instrument that is well understood and well-received by older high-risk patients and their caregivers.

Evaluation and Management of Delirium

Delirium, sometimes referred to as encephalopathy, is an acute confusional state that is both common in hospitalized patients and associated with poor outcomes. For patients, families, and caregivers, delirium can be a traumatic experience. While delirium is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by the consulting neurologist, the majority of the time it will have been previously unrecognized as such by the care team. Neurologic syndromes such as dementia or aphasia can either be misdiagnosed as delirium or may coexist with it, necessitating careful neurologic assessment. Once the diagnosis of delirium has been established, a careful evaluation for predisposing and precipitating factors can help uncover modifiable contributors, which should be addressed as part of a multicomponent, primarily nonpharmacologic intervention. Importantly, delirium management, which begins with comprehensive prevention, should emphasize the humanity of the delirious patient and the challenges of caring for this vulnerable population. When considered, delirium represents an important opportunity for the neurologist to substantially enhance patient care.

The 4 'A's test for detecting delirium in acute medical patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 'A's test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test - 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost.

METHODS

Phase 1 - the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 - the 4AT's diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0-14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0-6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067.

LIMITATIONS

Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

Detecting delirium in elderly medical emergency patients: validation and subsequent modification of the German Nursing Delirium Screening Scale

Detecting delirium in elderly emergency patients is critical to their outcome. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) is a short, feasible instrument that allows nurses to systematically screen for delirium. This is the first study to validate the Nu-DESC in a German emergency department (ED). The Nu-DESC was implemented in a high-volume, interdisciplinary German ED. A consecutively recruited sample of medical patients aged ≥ 70 years was screened by assigned nurses who performed the Nu-DESC as part of their daily work routine. The results were compared to a criterion standard diagnosis of delirium. According to the criterion standard diagnosis, delirium was present in 47 (14.9%) out of the 315 patients enrolled. The Nu-DESC shows a good specificity level of 91.0% (95% CI 87.0-94.2), but a moderate sensitivity level of 66.0% (95% CI 50.7-79.1). Positive and negative likelihood ratios are 7.37 (95% CI 4.77-11.36) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.25-0.56), respectively. In an exploratory analysis, we find that operationalizing the Nu-DESC item "disorientation" by specifically asking patients to state the day of the week and the name of the hospital unit would raise Nu-DESC sensitivity to 77.8%, with a specificity of 84.6% (positive and negative likelihood ratio of 5.05 and 0.26, respectively). The Nu-DESC shows good specificity but moderate sensitivity when performed by nurses during their daily work in a German ED. We have developed a modified Nu-DESC version, resulting in markedly enhanced sensitivity while maintaining a satisfactory level of specificity.

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review

Importance

Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.

Objectives

To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.

Evidence Review

This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.

Findings

Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.

Conclusions and Relevance

The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Delirium Assessment in Older People in Emergency Departments. A Literature Review

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome often manifesting in acute disease conditions, and with a greater prevalence in the older generation. Delirium in the Emergency Department (ED) is a highly prevalent problem that typically goes unnoticed by healthcare providers. The onset of a delirium episode in the ED is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. Because delirium is a preventable syndrome, these statistics are unacceptable. Emergency Department staff therefore should strive to perform systematic screening in order to detect delirium. Different tools have been developed for the assessment of delirium by healthcare professionals other than psychiatrists or geriatricians. Emergency Departments require delirium assessment scales of high sensitivity and specificity, suited to the characteristics of the Department, since the time available is scarce. In addition, the presence of dementia in the assessment of delirium may induce sensitivity bias. Despite the existence of numerous delirium rating scales, scales taking less than three minutes to complete are recommended. The choice of the tool depends on the characteristics of the ED. The only scale affording high sensitivity and specificity in older people with and without dementia is the Four "A"s Test (4AT); it requires no training on the part of the rater, and can be performed in under two minutes.

Validation of the Brief Confusion Assessment Method for Screening Delirium in Elderly Medical Patients in a German Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Delirium is frequent in elderly patients presenting in the emergency department (ED). Despite the severe prognosis, the majority of delirium cases remain undetected by emergency physicians (EPs). At the time of our study there was no valid delirium screening tool available for EDs in German-speaking regions. We aimed to evaluate the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) for a German ED during the daily work routine.

METHODS

We implemented the bCAM into practice in a German interdisciplinary high-volume ED and evaluated the bCAM's validity in a convenience sample of medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. The bCAM, which assesses four core features of delirium, was performed by EPs during their daily work routine and compared to a criterion standard based on the criteria for delirium as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

RESULTS

Compared to the criterion standard, delirium was found to be present in 46 (16.0%) of the 288 nonsurgical patients enrolled. The bCAM showed 93.8% specificity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 90.0%-96.5%) and 65.2% sensitivity (95% CI = 49.8%-78.7%). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.5 and 0.37, respectively, while the odds ratio was 28.4. Delirium was missed in 10 of 16 cases, since the bCAM did not indicate altered levels of consciousness and disorganized thinking. The level of agreement with the criterion standard increased for patients with low cognitive performance.

CONCLUSION

This was the first study evaluating the bCAM for a German ED and when performed by EPs during routine work. The bCAM showed good specificity, but only moderate sensitivity. Nevertheless, application of the bCAM most likely improves the delirium detection rate in German EDs. However, it should only be applied by trained physicians to maximize diagnostic accuracy and hence improve the bCAM's sensitivity. Future studies should refine the bCAM.

Does This Adult Patient With Jolt Accentuation of Headache Have Acute Meningitis?

OBJECTIVE

In order to identify appropriate candidates with suspected meningitis for lumbar puncture (LP), study designs and diagnostic values of jolt accentuation of headache (JA) were reviewed.

BACKGROUND

Acute meningitis is a life-threatening disease that requires LP for accurate diagnosis. JA was reported the most sensitive indicator of cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis; however, subsequent studies have failed to confirm this claim.

METHODS

We reviewed articles concerning JA, published prior to December 2017, using MEDLINE and Japanese medical databases. Seven original articles based on independent cohorts were eligible for inclusion and articles citing these 7 were thoroughly searched (11 in total). Additionally, all medical records of our previously reported cohort were reviewed again to explore how the patients' background influenced diagnostic values of JA.

RESULTS

We hypothesized that an oversimplified dichotomy of JA findings, pleocytosis, and meningitis created a misconception that JA is a universal indicator of meningitis. We clarify the difference between them and present altered mental status (AMS) as a key to decrease the sensitivity of JA. Notably, the sensitivity and specificity of JA were relatively low in unselected groups, while they tended to be high in the selected sub-groups with acute onset of headache and fever, without AMS or neurological deficits. Unselected populations included etiologies of pleocytosis other than acute meningitis, which might weaken the association between JA and pleocytosis.

CONCLUSION

JA is not a universal, stand-alone, indicator of meningitis in febrile patients with headache. Therefore, we propose a stepwise approach for patients with suspected acute meningitis. AMS or neurological deficits suggest an intracranial pathology, which may necessitate a lumbar puncture. JA seems a useful tool for distinguishing acute aseptic meningitis from upper respiratory infection when used in the selected cohort of febrile patients (≥37°C) with recent-onset headache (within 2 weeks before presentation) and normal mental status. This approach and diagnostic values of JA should be further investigated by prospective studies using operationally sorted candidates.