M J Stillman1, L A Rybicki. 1. Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Department of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. stillmm@ccf.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical tests for confusion in medically ill patients are frequently burdensome and difficult to use. Available tests lack portability and tend to be shunned in clinical practice by physicians. OBJECTIVE: To develop a simple, sensitive bedside test for confusion. DESIGN: Prospective comparison study. SETTING: An in-patient palliative medicine unit in a large urban hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients admitted to the unit. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: A 2-minute screening test, the Bedside Confusion Scale (BCS), which utilizes an observation of level of consciousness at the time of clinical interaction, followed by a timed task of attention, was administered to 31 consecutively admitted patients. The results were compared to a previously validated test, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). The BCS and the CAM were scored in standardized fashion and results of the two populations compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient population, along with the Karnofsky performance scores (KPS) and neurological findings were registered. RESULTS: Using the CAM as the reference standard, the sensitivity of the BCS was 100%. Worsening KPS and more abnormalities on neurological examination were seen across normal (BCS = 0), borderline (BCS = 1), and abnormal (BCS >/= 2) groups (p > 0.01, trend test). CONCLUSIONS: In an in-patient palliative medicine population, the BCS correlates with the previously validated CAM and exhibits high sensitivity, an essential quality of a useful screening test.
BACKGROUND: Clinical tests for confusion in medically ill patients are frequently burdensome and difficult to use. Available tests lack portability and tend to be shunned in clinical practice by physicians. OBJECTIVE: To develop a simple, sensitive bedside test for confusion. DESIGN: Prospective comparison study. SETTING: An in-patient palliative medicine unit in a large urban hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients admitted to the unit. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: A 2-minute screening test, the Bedside Confusion Scale (BCS), which utilizes an observation of level of consciousness at the time of clinical interaction, followed by a timed task of attention, was administered to 31 consecutively admitted patients. The results were compared to a previously validated test, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). The BCS and the CAM were scored in standardized fashion and results of the two populations compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient population, along with the Karnofsky performance scores (KPS) and neurological findings were registered. RESULTS: Using the CAM as the reference standard, the sensitivity of the BCS was 100%. Worsening KPS and more abnormalities on neurological examination were seen across normal (BCS = 0), borderline (BCS = 1), and abnormal (BCS >/= 2) groups (p > 0.01, trend test). CONCLUSIONS: In an in-patient palliative medicine population, the BCS correlates with the previously validated CAM and exhibits high sensitivity, an essential quality of a useful screening test.
Authors: B O'Connor; M Markicevic; L Newman; R K Poduval; E Tiernan; E Hanrahan; S Cuffe; R B Reilly; D Walsh Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Wolfgang Hasemann; Florian F Grossmann; Rahel Stadler; Roland Bingisser; Dieter Breil; Martina Hafner; Reto W Kressig; Christian H Nickel Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-12-30 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Jade Homsi; Declan Walsh; Nilo Rivera; Lisa A Rybicki; Kristine A Nelson; Susan B Legrand; Mellar Davis; Michael Naughton; Dragoslav Gvozdjan; Hahn Pham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Simon Delp; Wei Mei; Claudia D Spies; Bruno Neuner; César Aldecoa; Gabriella Bettelli; Federico Bilotta; Robert D Sanders; Sylvia Kramer; Bjoern Weiss Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Christine L Watt; Franco Momoli; Mohammed T Ansari; Lindsey Sikora; Shirley H Bush; Annmarie Hosie; Monisha Kabir; Erin Rosenberg; Salmaan Kanji; Peter G Lawlor Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Florian F Grossmann; Wolfgang Hasemann; Andreas Graber; Roland Bingisser; Reto W Kressig; Christian H Nickel Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Wolfgang Hasemann; Nikki Duncan; Caoimhe Clarke; Eva Nouzova; Lisa-Marie Süßenbach; Catriona Keerie; Valentina Assi; Christopher J Weir; Jonathan Evans; Tim Walsh; Elizabeth Wilson; Tara Quasim; Duncan Middleton; Alexander J Weir; Jennifer H Barnett; David J Stott; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Zoë Tieges Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 1.710