OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of symptom prevalence and adequate assessment of such symptoms at the end of life is important in clinical practice. We determined the frequency and severity of symptom distress and delirium using the Edmonton Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and evaluated the clinical utility of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) as scored by a caregiver as a screening tool for delirium. METHOD: We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a previous randomized controlled trial on parenteral hydration at the end of life of patients admitted to home hospice. Only patients that had assessments within the last week of life were included. We collected the ESAS, MDAS, Nu-DESC, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) results. The sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were then calculated. RESULTS:Some 78 of 261 patients were included in our study, 62 (80%) of which had moderate-to-severe symptoms corresponding to an ESAS score >4. These symptoms include: 73 (94%) anorexia, 63 (81%) fatigue, 56 (73%) drowsiness, 58 (75%) decreased well-being, and 39 (51%) pain. Delirium was diagnosed in 34 (44%) of patients using the MDAS. The Nu-DESC was found to have a sensitivity of 35%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58%, and an negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% when used by caregivers. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Hospice patients at the end of life have a high rate of symptom distress and delirium. The Nu-DESC is not a reliable tool for screening delirium when scoring is conducted by a caregiver. Our study illustrates the need for routine use of assessment tools to improve care.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of symptom prevalence and adequate assessment of such symptoms at the end of life is important in clinical practice. We determined the frequency and severity of symptom distress and delirium using the Edmonton Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and evaluated the clinical utility of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) as scored by a caregiver as a screening tool for delirium. METHOD: We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a previous randomized controlled trial on parenteral hydration at the end of life of patients admitted to home hospice. Only patients that had assessments within the last week of life were included. We collected the ESAS, MDAS, Nu-DESC, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) results. The sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were then calculated. RESULTS: Some 78 of 261 patients were included in our study, 62 (80%) of which had moderate-to-severe symptoms corresponding to an ESAS score >4. These symptoms include: 73 (94%) anorexia, 63 (81%) fatigue, 56 (73%) drowsiness, 58 (75%) decreased well-being, and 39 (51%) pain. Delirium was diagnosed in 34 (44%) of patients using the MDAS. The Nu-DESC was found to have a sensitivity of 35%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58%, and an negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% when used by caregivers. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Hospice patients at the end of life have a high rate of symptom distress and delirium. The Nu-DESC is not a reliable tool for screening delirium when scoring is conducted by a caregiver. Our study illustrates the need for routine use of assessment tools to improve care.
Authors: Veerawat Phongtankuel; Jeanne A Teresi; Joseph P Eimicke; Jian X Kong; Ronald D Adelman; Holly G Prigerson; Sara J Czaja; Ariel Shalev; Ritchell Dignam; Rosemary Baughn; M Cary Reid Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sebastiano Mercadante; Federica Aielli; Francesco Masedu; Marco Valenti; Lucilla Verna; Giampiero Porzio Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sebastiano Mercadante; Francesco Masedu; Isabella Balzani; Daniela De Giovanni; Luigi Montanari; Cristina Pittureri; Raffaella Bertè; Domenico Russo; Laura Ursini; Franco Marinangeli; Federica Aielli Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Elizabeth A Luth; Paul K Maciejewski; Veerawat Phongtankuel; Jiehui Xu; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.612
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: Anna-Maria Krooupa; Bella Vivat; Stephen McKeever; Elena Marcus; Joseph Sawyer; Paddy Stone Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.713
Authors: Virginia LeBaron; Rachel Bennett; Ridwan Alam; Leslie Blackhall; Kate Gordon; James Hayes; Nutta Homdee; Randy Jones; Yudel Martinez; Emmanuel Ogunjirin; Tanya Thomas; John Lach Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-08-26
Authors: Veerawat Phongtankuel; M C Reid; Sara J Czaja; Jeanne Teresi; Joseph P Eimicke; Jian X Kong; Holly Prigerson; Ariel Shalev; Ritchell Dignam; Rosemary Baughn; Ronald D Adelman Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-07-07