A smartphone-based test for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium: A case-control diagnostic test accuracy study in older hospitalised patients

A narrative review of the development and performance characteristics of electronic delirium-screening tools

BACKGROUND

Electronic delirium-screening tools are an emergent area of research.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to summarise the development and performance characteristics of electronic screening tools in delirium.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Pubmed, Embase, and CINAHL Complete databases to identify electronic delirium-screening tools.

RESULTS

Five electronic delirium-screening tools were identified and reviewed. Two were designed for and tested within a medical setting, and three were applied to intensive care. Adaptive design features, such as skip function to reduce test burden, were variably integrated into instrument design. All tools were shown to have acceptable psychometric properties, but validation studies were largely incomplete.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic delirium-screening tools are an exciting area of development and may offer hope for improved uptake of delirium screening.

Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments

Delirium presents formidable challenges: it affects one in four of older hospitalised adults, greatly elevates the risk of multiple short- and long-term complications including dementia and causes significant distress. Delirium care remains generally poor. Yet, there are clear grounds for optimism; the last decade has seen impactful policy advances and a tripling of research output. Here, we highlight three linked areas which have strong potential to transform delirium practice and knowledge in the near term. Delirium-related distress is strikingly underrepresented in practice guidance and research. Proactive recognition combined with effective clinical responses based on good communication provides a critical and largely untapped opportunity to improve care. Delirium epidemiology research is well positioned to produce novel insights through advanced prospective designs in populations such as emergency medical patients with detailed pre-, intra- and post-delirium assessments allied with fluid, imaging and other biomarkers. Research-grade assessment of delirium currently involves a chaotic array of tools, methods and diagnostic algorithms. Areas for development: expand and analytically distinguish the range of features assessed (including distress), optimise feature assessment including use of validated neuropsychological tests where possible, produce standardised algorithms which articulate explicit pathways from features to diagnosis, and create new fine-grained approaches to the measurement of severity. Delirium practice and knowledge show accelerating growth. This is encouraging but much of the necessary progress is still to come. Innovation in these three highlighted areas, as well as many others, will open up exciting possibilities in enhancing the care of patients with this common and often devastating condition.

Computerized tool and interdisciplinary care for older patients with delirium in the emergency department: a novel model in Taiwan

AIMS

A computerized tool and interdisciplinary care were implemented to develop a novel model for older patients with delirium in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We developed a computerized tool using a delirium triage screen and brief confusion assessment in the hospital information system, performed education for the healthcare providers, and developed a continuous care protocol. Comparisons for outcomes between pre- and post-intervention periods were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with the pre-intervention period, patients in the post-intervention period had shorter hospitalization stay, lower expenditure of hospitalization, more likely to return home, lower ED revisits of ≤ 3 days, re-hospitalization of ≤ 14 days, and mortality of ≤ 1 month. All mentioned differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel model was successfully developed for delirium management in older patients in the ED. Outcome differences were not significant; however, the result is promising, which gives us an important reference in the future.

Comparing performance on the Months of the Year Backwards test in hospitalised patients with delirium, dementia, and no cognitive impairment: an exploratory study

Aim

To investigate performance of the Months of the Year Backwards (MOTYB) test in older hospitalised patients with delirium, dementia, and no cognitive impairment.

Findings

Half of the patients with delirium (46%) could not engage with MOTYB compared to only 11% of patients with dementia without delirium. In patients able to give responses, those with delirium or dementia performed significantly worse than those without cognitive impairment.

Message

Our findings show the potential value of analysing response patterns, especially initial engagement, self-correction, and ability to continue to do the task in addition to considering exclusively the capacity to correctly recite the months until July, June or January.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00521-4.

Purpose

To investigate performance of the Months of the Year Backwards (MOTYB) test in older hospitalised patients with delirium, dementia, and no cognitive impairment.

Methods

Secondary analysis of data from a case–control study of 149 hospitalised patients aged ≥ 65 years with delirium [with or without dementia (N = 50)], dementia [without delirium (N = 46)], and no cognitive impairment (N = 53). Verbatim transcripts of MOTYB audio recordings were analysed to determine group differences in response patterns.

Results

In the total sample [median age 85y (IQR 80–88), 82% female], patients with delirium were more often unable to recite months backward to November (36/50 = 72%) than patients with dementia (21/46 = 46%; p < 0.01) and both differed significantly from patients without cognitive impairment (2/53 = 4%; p’s < 0.001). 121/149 (81%) of patients were able to engage with the test. Patients with delirium were more often unable to engage with MOTYB (23/50 = 46%; e.g., due to reduced arousal) than patients with dementia (5/46 = 11%; p < 0.001); both groups differed significantly (p’s < 0.001) from patients without cognitive impairment (0/53 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between patients with delirium (2/27 = 7%) and patients with dementia (8/41 = 20%) in completing MOTYB to January, but performance in both groups differed (p < 0.001 and p < 0.02, respectively) from patients without cognitive impairment (35/53 = 66%).

Conclusion

Delirium was associated with inability to engage with MOTYB and low rates of completion. In patients able to engage with the test, error-free completion rates were low in delirium and dementia. Recording of engagement and patterns of errors may add useful information to MOTYB scoring.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00521-4.

Delirium

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.