An evaluation of single question delirium screening tools in older emergency department patients

Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds.

RESULTS

Full-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study.

Delirium and Delirium Prevention in the Emergency Department

This article covers the epidemiology of delirium and the overlapping condition of altered mental status and encephalopathy that is relevant to those who practice in the emergency department.

Identification through the Manchester Triage System of the older population at risk of delirium: A case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To identify the flow charts and discriminators of the Manchester Triage System that are most likely to identify the onset of delirium in older people.

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an underdiagnosed geriatric syndrome, and up to 80% of all cases of delirium go undetected in emergency departments. Patient triage seeks to manage clinical risk with a view to safely and appropriately managing patient flows.

DESIGN

A case-control study was performed according to the STROBE checklist.

SETTING

The emergency department of a secondary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults aged ≥65 years and admitted from 1 January to 31 December 2020.

METHODS

Older patients were identified from the emergency department research database. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with delirium (n = 128), excluding cases of delirium due to alcohol or substance abuse. Controls were randomised from the remaining patients (n = 128).

RESULTS

A total of 29.35% of the subjects admitted to the emergency department were older adults with an incidence of delirium of 0.7%. The flow charts with the highest probability of delirium were 'unwell adult' [OR = 3.04 (95%CI:1.82-5.1)] and 'behaving strangely' [OR = 16.06 (95%CI:3.72-69.29)], and the discriminators were 'rapid onset' [OR = 3.3 (95%CI:1.85-5.88)] and 'new neurological deficit less than 24 h old' [OR = 4.76 (95%%CI:1.01-22.5). The area under the curve for 'unwell adult' in the presence of dementia, previous stroke and fall in the previous 30 days was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.67-0.79), and that for 'behaving strangely' in the presence of diabetes was 0.75 (95%CI: 0.69-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing which flow charts, discriminators and risk factors are most likely to predict delirium allows the identification of the older population at risk for triage screening in emergency departments.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Risk factors such as diabetes, dementia, previous stroke and recent fall among 'unwell adult' or 'behaving strangely' triaged older persons should be assessed for the probable presence of delirium.

Delirium in the elderly admitted to an emergency hospital service

ABSTRACT Objective: To check for the presence of delirium in the elderly entering the emergency room (ER) of the University Hospital of Santa Maria (HUSM) and their relationship with sociodemographic variables, reason and time of hospitalization, comorbidities, and death. Methods: A quantitative, cross-sectional exploratory study, which analyzed data from the sociodemographic profile, Confusion Assessment Method, Charlson Comorbidities Index, and follow-up of the outcomes “in-hospital death” and “length of hospitalization.” The period analyzed in the study was between July and December 2019. Results: Of the 732 participants, 394 (53.90%) were men, with an average age of 72 years. The study identified Delirium in 99 (13.52%) participants, and death, in 120 (16.39%). There was an association of this disorder with age, comorbidities, length of hospitalization, death, and some reasons for hospitalization, such as diseases of the circulatory, respiratory and genitourinary systems. Conclusion: The results warn of the high incidence of delirium in emergency units and their relationship with a worse prognosis.

Screening instruments for cognitive impairment in older patients in the Emergency Department: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

cognitive impairment is highly prevalent among older patients attending the Emergency Department (ED) and is associated with adverse outcomes.

Methods

we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening instruments to rule out cognitive impairment in older patients in the ED. A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL. A risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2 was performed.

Results

23 articles, examining 18 different index tests were included. Only seven index tests could be included in the meta-analysis. For ruling out cognitive impairment irrespective of aetiology, Ottawa 3 Day Year (O3DY) (pooled sensitivity 0.90; (95% CI) 0.71–0.97) had the highest sensitivity. Fourteen articles focused on screening for cognitive impairment specifically caused by delirium. For ruling out delirium, the 4 A’s Test (4AT) showed highest sensitivity (pooled sensitivity 0.87, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.74–0.94).

Conclusions

high clinical and methodological heterogeneity was found between included studies. Therefore, it is a challenge to recommend one diagnostic test for use as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in the ED. The 4AT and O3DY seem most promising for ruling out cognitive impairment in older patients attending the ED.

The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018082509).

Delirium Prevention, Detection, and Treatment in Emergency Medicine Settings: A Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) Network Scoping Review and Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

Older adult delirium is often unrecognized in the emergency department (ED), yet the most compelling research questions to overcome knowledge-to-practice deficits remain undefined. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network was organized to identify and prioritize delirium clinical questions.

METHODS

GEAR identified and engaged 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders including emergency physicians, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patient advocates. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews, clinical questions were derived, medical librarian electronic searches were conducted, and applicable research evidence was synthesized for ED delirium detection, prevention, and management. The scoping review served as the foundation for a consensus conference to identify the highest priority research foci.

RESULTS

In the scoping review, 27 delirium detection "instruments" were described in 48 ED studies and used variable criterion standards with the result of delirium prevalence ranging from 6% to 38%. Clinician gestalt was the most common "instrument" evaluated with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 81% and specificity from 65% to 100%. For delirium management, 15 relevant studies were identified, including one randomized controlled trial. Some intervention studies targeted clinicians via education and others used clinical pathways. Three medications were evaluated to reduce or prevent ED delirium. No intervention consistently prevented or treated delirium. After reviewing the scoping review results, the GEAR stakeholders identified ED delirium prevention interventions not reliant on additional nurse or physician effort as the highest priority research.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdisciplinary stakeholders prioritize ED delirium prevention studies that are not reliant on health care worker tasks instead of alternative research directions such as defining etiologic delirium phenotypes to target prevention or intervention strategies.

Delirium in the Emergency Department: Moving From Tool-Based Research to System-Wide Change

This editorial comments on the article by.Malihot et al.

[Triage, screening, and assessment of geriatric patients in the emergency department]

BACKGROUND

Geriatric patients are increasingly dominating the daily routine in German emergency departments (ED). With their typical characteristics multimorbidity, polypharmacy, vulnerability, frailty and cognitive impairment, especially delirium, they are a special challenge for the processes in the ED. Though some emergency physician might consider "the old patient" as not exciting, there is a broad consensus that pragmatic geriatric screening tools are required. This consensus exists not only among the medical societies but also within the German Society for Emergency Medicine itself. In this article the characteristics of the geriatric patient, the pitfalls of triage systems and the difficulties to screen geriatric patients in a sensible manner are described.

DISCUSSION

The common triage systems and the screening tools that have been developed for geriatric emergency patients have disadvantages. In Manchester Triage System (MTS) and Emergency Severity Index (ESI) geriatric patients are at risk of incorrect triage, though both systems, e.g., name acute cognitive impairment as a high-risk factor. The ESI has been validated for geriatric patients. The correct use of the triage algorithms is crucial, but for a triage nurse, acute cognitive impairment, e.g., might be difficult to identify. One reason for that is that many of the existing screening tools are not applicable in the ED or are without immediate benefit for the patient. More practical tools will have to be developed in the future.

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.