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

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of the 3-minute diagnostic interview for confusion assessment method-defined delirium in delirium detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication clinically and is associated with the poor outcomes, yet it is frequently unrecognised and readily disregarded. Although the 3-minute diagnostic interview for confusion assessment method-defined delirium (3D-CAM) has been used in a variety of care settings, a comprehensive evaluation of its accuracy in all available care settings has not been performed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of the 3D-CAM in delirium detection through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO) and ClinicalTrials.gov published from inception to 10 July 2022. The quality assessment of the diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool was applied to evaluate methodological quality. A bivariate random effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1,350 participants and 2,499 assessments were included, which were carried out in general medical wards, intensive care units, internal medical wards, surgical wards, recovery rooms and post-anaesthesia care units. The prevalence of delirium ranged from 9.1% to 25%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.95) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.97), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 18.6 (95% CI 12.2-28.2), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI 0.06-0.14) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 211 (95% CI 128-349). Moreover, the area under the curve was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D-CAM has good diagnostic accuracy for delirium detection in different care settings. Further analyses illustrated that it had comparable diagnostic accuracy in older adults and patients with dementia or known baseline cognitive impairment. In conclusion, the 3D-CAM is recommended for clinical delirium detection.

Association of delirium with increased short-term mortality among older emergency department patients: A cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between delirium and subsequent short-term mortality in geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of adults age ≥75 years who presented to an academic ED and were screened for delirium during their ED visit. The Delirium Triage Screen followed by the Brief Confusion Assessment Method were used to ascertain the presence of delirium. In-hospital, 7-day, and 30-day mortality were compared between patients with and without ED delirium. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated through logistic regression after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, history of dementia, ED disposition, and acuity.

RESULTS

A total of 967 ED visits were included for analysis among which delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The median age of the cohort was 83 years (IQR 79, 88), 526 (54.4%) were female, 285 (29.5%) had documented dementia, and 171 (17.7%) had a high acuity Emergency Severity Index triage level 1 or 2. During the hospitalization, 5/107 (4.7%) of those with delirium and 4/860 (0.5%) of those without delirium died. Within 7 days of ED departure, 6/107 (5.6%) of those with delirium and 6/860 (0.7%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 8.46, 95% CI 2.68-26.71). Within 30 days, 18/107 (16.8%) of those with delirium and 37/860 (4.3%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 4.50, 95% CI 2.46-8.23). ED delirium remained associated with higher 7-day (adjusted OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.44-19.05, p = 0.008) and 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.45-5.46, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Delirium is an important prognostic factor that ED clinicians and nurses must be aware of to optimize delirium prevention, management, disposition, and communication with patients and families.

Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P < 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

Natural Language Processing CAM Algorithm Improves Delirium Detection Compared With Conventional Methods

Delirium is known to be underdiagnosed and underdocumented. Delirium detection in retrospective studies occurs mostly by clinician diagnosis or nursing documentation. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of natural language processing-confusion assessment method (NLP-CAM) algorithm when compared to conventional modalities of delirium detection. A multicenter retrospective study analyzed 4351 COVID-19 hospitalized patient records to identify delirium occurrence utilizing three different delirium detection modalities namely clinician diagnosis, nursing documentation, and the NLP-CAM algorithm. Delirium detection by any of the 3 methods is considered positive for delirium occurrence as a comparison. NLP-CAM captured 80% of overall delirium, followed by clinician diagnosis at 55%, and nursing flowsheet documentation at 43%. Increase in age, Charlson comorbidity score, and length of hospitalization had increased delirium detection odds regardless of the detection method. Artificial intelligence-based NLP-CAM algorithm, compared to conventional methods, improved delirium detection from electronic health records and holds promise in delirium diagnostics.

Association of delirium screening on hospitalized adults and postacute care utilization: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with delirium have increased hospital length of stay (LOS), morbidity and mortality. Impact of delirium on postacute care (PAC) utilization is not fully characterized. Impact of screening for delirium on general medicine patients is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess impact of screening for delirium on inpatient PAC utilization.

METHODS

This was a single center, retrospective cohort study at an academic tertiary care center in Charleston, SC. Patients were selected from adults hospitalized from home and discharged alive between June 2014 and June 2018. The brief confusion assessment method (bCAM) screening was conducted and documented by nursing on admission and every shift thereafter. Outcome measure was the proportion of patients discharged to facility.

RESULTS

Of 93,388 non-ICU adult admission between June 2014 and June 2018, 4.4% of those not screened for delirium were discharged to facility versus 15.0% in those screened and 41.4% in those screening positive. Multivariable regression analysis showed that patients screened for delirium were 2.3 times more likely to discharge to facility (95% CI (2.145, 2.429)) while those with a positive bCAM were 3.3 times more likely than those with a negative bCAM to discharge to facility (95% CI (2.949, 3.712)).

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for demographics, medication orders and comorbidities there was an association between screening for delirium, positive delirium screen and discharge to facility. An appreciation of where and why patients are discharged is imperative to optimize both patient care and cost utilization.

REcognizing DElirium in geriatric Emergency Medicine: The REDEEM risk stratification score

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high-risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening.

METHODS

This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO-penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864-0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from -3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%-90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non-ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%-88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%-95.8%).

CONCLUSION

A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium-targeted screening of high-risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

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.

Postoperative Cardiovascular Surgery Delirium: Interrater Agreement Between Nurses and Clinical Nurse Specialist and Factors Associated With Prevalence

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to examine interrater agreement of delirium between clinical nurses and a clinical nurse specialist, determine delirium subtype prevalence, and examine associated patient, procedure, and hospital factors.

DESIGN

A descriptive cross-sectional design and a convenience sample of nurses and patients on progressive care units were used in this study.

METHODS

Clinical nurse specialist data were collected on a case report form, and clinician and patient data were obtained from electronic databases. Interrater agreement of delirium prevalence was assessed by κ statistic, and logistic regression models were used to determine patient factors associated with delirium.

RESULTS

Of 216 patients, 23 had delirium; clinical nurses identified fewer cases than the clinical nurse specialist: 1.8% versus 10.7%; κ agreement, 0.27 (0.06, 0.49). By delirium subtype, hypoactive delirium was more frequent (n = 10). Factors associated with delirium were history of cerebrovascular disease (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.8 [1.01-7.7]; P = .044), history of mitral valve disease (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.31 [0.09-0.90]; P = .041), and longer perfusion time (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.7 [1.1-2.7]; P = .016). One factor was associated with hypoactive delirium, longer perfusion time (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.2 [1.3-4.2]; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Because clinician-clinical nurse specialist delirium agreement was low and hypoactive delirium was common, clinical interventions are needed.

Trends in Geriatric Emergency Medicine

Geriatric emergency medicine has emerged as a subspecialty of emergency medicine over the past 25 years. This emergence has seen the development of increases in training opportunities, care delivery strategies, collaborative best practice guidelines, and formal geriatric emergency department accreditation. This multidisciplinary field remains ripe for continued development in the coming decades as the aging US population parallels a call from patients, health care providers, and health systems to improve the delivery of high-value care. This article educates emergency medicine practitioners and highlights high-value care practice trends to inform and prioritize decision-making for this unique patient population.

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.

Prevalence of Geriatric Syndromes and the Need for Hospice Care in Older Patients of the Emergency Department: A Study in an Asian Medical Center

Background

The prevalence of geriatric syndromes and the need for hospice care in the emergency department (ED) in Asian populations remain unclear. This study was conducted to fill the data gap.

Methods

Using a newly developed emergency geriatric assessment (EGA), we investigated the prevalence of geriatric syndromes and the need for hospice care in older ED patients of a tertiary medical center between September 1, 2016, and January 31, 2017.

Results

We recruited a total of 693 patients with a mean age of 78.0 years (standard deviation 8.2 years), comprising 46.6% of females. According to age subgroups, 37.4% of patients were aged 65-74 years, 37.4% were aged 75-84 years, and 25.2% were aged ≥85 years. The prevalence rates of geriatric syndromes were as follows: delirium (11.4%), depression (23.4%), dementia (43.1%), deterioration of activities of daily living (ADL) for <1 year (29.4%), vision impairment (22.2%), hearing impairment (23.8%), sleep disturbance (13.1%), any fall in <1 year (21.8%), polypharmacy (28.7%), pain (35.1%), pressure ulcer (5.6%), incontinence or retention (29.6%), indwelling device or physical restrain (21.6%), nutrition problem (35.7%), frequent use of medical resources (50.1%), lack of advance care planning (84.0%), caregiver problem (4.6%), socioeconomic problem (5.5%), and need for family meeting (6.2%). The need for hospice care was 11.9%. Most geriatric syndromes increased with advancing age except depression, sleep disturbance, polypharmacy, pain, nutrition problem, lack of advance care planning, caregiver problem, and socioeconomic problem.

Conclusion

Geriatric syndromes and the need for hospice care were common in the older ED patients. Further studies about subsequent intervention for improving geriatric care are needed.

Clinical impact of frailty among patients with severe vital sign derangement: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and frail patients may have reduced ability to tolerate severe vital sign derangement such as estimated by a high National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The clinical impact of frailty among patients that develop high NEWS during hospital admissions is sparsely studied. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between clinical frailty and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) among these patients.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study from November 2017 to January 2018. We included adult patients admitted to general wards that during hospitalization developed severe vital sign derangement defined as NEWS ≥7. Patients were without treatment restrictions at inclusion. Primary exposure was frailty as assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale. Primary outcome was ICU admission within 90 days, which was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 109 patients with NEWS ≥7, of which 61 patients (56%) were frail. Ten of the 61 frail patients (16%) were admitted to ICU compared to 9 of the 48 non-frail patients (19%), adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.32-2.62). Frail patients were more likely to have new treatment restrictions (aOR 2.91; 95% CI 1.26-6.71). Their aOR for mortality was 1.95 (95% CI 0.84-4.55).

CONCLUSION

Frail patients with severe vital sign derangement during acute hospital admissions were not more likely to be admitted to ICU nor was mortality higher. Treatment restrictions were more frequent among frail patients after vital sign derangements developed.

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.

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.