OBJECTIVES: To improve identification of patients at high risk for delirium, this study developed a chart abstraction tool for delirium risk and validated the tool against clinical expert diagnosis of delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary Veterans Affairs hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred veterans admitted to the medical service. MEASUREMENTS: While admitted, each participant underwent serial assessments for delirium by a clinical expert. Using the four criteria of a validated delirium prediction rule (cognitive impairment, sensory deficit, severe illness, and dehydration), chart review terms were selected for each criterion, and delirium risk was the sum of criteria present (range: 0-4; 4 = worst). After discharge, a nurse blinded to the expert's diagnosis completed the chart tool. RESULTS: The participants were mostly male (94%) and older (mean age 81 ± 7), and 23% developed overall delirium (14% incident). The rate of overall delirium was 11% in participants with zero risk factors, 18% in those with one or two, and 50% in those with three or four (P = .01; c-statistic 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.76). For incident delirium, the rates were 11%, 13%, and 25%, respectively (P = .53; c-statistic 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.74). Discharge to a rehabilitation center or nursing home increased with increasing delirium risk (0%, 18%, 60%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: A chart abstraction tool was effective at identifying overall delirium risk but not incident delirium risk. Although the tool cannot replace clinical assessment and diagnosis of delirium, the use of this tool as an educational, clinical, or quality measurement aid warrants additional study.
OBJECTIVES: To improve identification of patients at high risk for delirium, this study developed a chart abstraction tool for delirium risk and validated the tool against clinical expert diagnosis of delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary Veterans Affairs hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred veterans admitted to the medical service. MEASUREMENTS: While admitted, each participant underwent serial assessments for delirium by a clinical expert. Using the four criteria of a validated delirium prediction rule (cognitive impairment, sensory deficit, severe illness, and dehydration), chart review terms were selected for each criterion, and delirium risk was the sum of criteria present (range: 0-4; 4 = worst). After discharge, a nurse blinded to the expert's diagnosis completed the chart tool. RESULTS: The participants were mostly male (94%) and older (mean age 81 ± 7), and 23% developed overall delirium (14% incident). The rate of overall delirium was 11% in participants with zero risk factors, 18% in those with one or two, and 50% in those with three or four (P = .01; c-statistic 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.76). For incident delirium, the rates were 11%, 13%, and 25%, respectively (P = .53; c-statistic 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.74). Discharge to a rehabilitation center or nursing home increased with increasing delirium risk (0%, 18%, 60%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: A chart abstraction tool was effective at identifying overall delirium risk but not incident delirium risk. Although the tool cannot replace clinical assessment and diagnosis of delirium, the use of this tool as an educational, clinical, or quality measurement aid warrants additional study.
Authors: Samuel E Simon; Margaret A Bergmann; Richard N Jones; Katherine M Murphy; E John Orav; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2006-05-30 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: S K Inouye; S T Bogardus; P A Charpentier; L Leo-Summers; D Acampora; T R Holford; L M Cooney Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James L Rudolph; Richard N Jones; Sue E Levkoff; Christopher Rockett; Sharon K Inouye; Frank W Sellke; Shukri F Khuri; Lewis A Lipsitz; Basel Ramlawi; Sidney Levitsky; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lee Hooper; Asmaa Abdelhamid; Natalie J Attreed; Wayne W Campbell; Adam M Channell; Philippe Chassagne; Kennith R Culp; Stephen J Fletcher; Matthew B Fortes; Nigel Fuller; Phyllis M Gaspar; Daniel J Gilbert; Adam C Heathcote; Mohannad W Kafri; Fumiko Kajii; Gregor Lindner; Gary W Mack; Janet C Mentes; Paolo Merlani; Rowan A Needham; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Andreas Perren; James Powers; Sheila C Ranson; Patrick Ritz; Anne M Rowat; Fredrik Sjöstrand; Alexandra C Smith; Jodi J D Stookey; Nancy A Stotts; David R Thomas; Angela Vivanti; Bonnie J Wakefield; Nana Waldréus; Neil P Walsh; Sean Ward; John F Potter; Paul Hunter Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-04-30
Authors: Heidi Lindroth; Lisa Bratzke; Suzanne Purvis; Roger Brown; Mark Coburn; Marko Mrkobrada; Matthew T V Chan; Daniel H J Davis; Pratik Pandharipande; Cynthia M Carlsson; Robert D Sanders Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mark L van Zuylen; Jeroen Hermanides; Werner Ten Hoope; Benedikt Preckel; Diederik van de Beek; Willem A van Gool; Niels Schoenmaker Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Sarah T Pendlebury; Nicola Lovett; Sarah C Smith; Emily Cornish; Ziyah Mehta; Peter M Rothwell Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 10.668