OBJECTIVE: To compare the recognition of delirium by emergency physicians based on observations made during routine clinical care with concurrent ratings made by a trained researcher after formal cognitive assessment and to examine each of the four individual features of delirium separately to determine the variation in identification across features. METHODS: In a prospective study, a convenience sample of 259 patients, aged ≥65 years, who presented to two urban, teaching hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Western Pennsylvania between 21 June and 29 August 2011, underwent paired delirium ratings by an emergency physician and a trained researcher. Emergency physicians were asked to use their clinical judgment to decide whether the patient had any of the following delirium features: (1) acute change in mental status, (2) inattention, (3) disorganised thinking and (4) altered level of consciousness. Questions were prompted with examples of delirium features from the Confusion Assessment Method. Concurrently, a trained researcher interviewed surrogates to determine feature 1, conducted a cognitive test for delirium (Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit) to determine delirium features 2 and 3 and used the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale to determine feature 4. RESULTS: In the 2-month study period, trained researchers identified delirium in 24/259 (9%; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.13) older patients admitted to the ED. However, attending emergency physicians recognised delirium in only 8 of the 24 and misidentified delirium in a further seven patients. Emergency physicians were particularly poor at recognising altered level of consciousness but were better at recognising acute change in mental status and inattention. CONCLUSIONS: When emergency physicians use routine clinical observations, they may miss diagnosing up to two-thirds of patients with delirium. Recognition of delirium can be enhanced with standardised cognitive testing.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the recognition of delirium by emergency physicians based on observations made during routine clinical care with concurrent ratings made by a trained researcher after formal cognitive assessment and to examine each of the four individual features of delirium separately to determine the variation in identification across features. METHODS: In a prospective study, a convenience sample of 259 patients, aged ≥65 years, who presented to two urban, teaching hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Western Pennsylvania between 21 June and 29 August 2011, underwent paired delirium ratings by an emergency physician and a trained researcher. Emergency physicians were asked to use their clinical judgment to decide whether the patient had any of the following delirium features: (1) acute change in mental status, (2) inattention, (3) disorganised thinking and (4) altered level of consciousness. Questions were prompted with examples of delirium features from the Confusion Assessment Method. Concurrently, a trained researcher interviewed surrogates to determine feature 1, conducted a cognitive test for delirium (Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit) to determine delirium features 2 and 3 and used the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale to determine feature 4. RESULTS: In the 2-month study period, trained researchers identified delirium in 24/259 (9%; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.13) older patients admitted to the ED. However, attending emergency physicians recognised delirium in only 8 of the 24 and misidentified delirium in a further seven patients. Emergency physicians were particularly poor at recognising altered level of consciousness but were better at recognising acute change in mental status and inattention. CONCLUSIONS: When emergency physicians use routine clinical observations, they may miss diagnosing up to two-thirds of patients with delirium. Recognition of delirium can be enhanced with standardised cognitive testing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accident & Emergency Medicine; Geriatric Medicine
Authors: Andrea L Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Laura M Block; Lily Walljasper; Nikki Hill; Carey Gleason; Manish N Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Hsing-Jung Chao; Yin-Ju Lien; Yu-Chen Kao; I-Chuan Tasi; Hui-Shin Lin; Yin-Yi Lien Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nirit Tzur Efraim; Evgeniya Zikrin; David Shacham; Dori Katz; Evgeni Makulin; Leonid Barski; Lior Zeller; Carmi Bartal; Tamar Freud; Svetlana Lebedinski; Yan Press Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-10-19
Authors: Elijah Blue Dahlstrom; Jin Ho Han; Heather Healy; Maura Kennedy; Glenn Arendts; Jacques Lee; Chris Carpenter; Sangil Lee Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maura Kennedy; Benjamin K I Helfand; Ray Yun Gou; Sarah L Gartaganis; Margaret Webb; J Michelle Moccia; Stacey N Bruursema; Belinda Dokic; Brigid McCulloch; Hope Ring; Justin D Margolin; Ellen Zhang; Robert Anderson; Rhonda L Babine; Tammy Hshieh; Ambrose H Wong; R Andrew Taylor; Kathleen Davenport; Brittni Teresi; Tamara G Fong; Sharon K Inouye Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02