Jin H Han1,2, Eduard E Vasilevskis1,3,4,5, John F Schnelle1,3,4,5, Ayumi Shintani6, Robert S Dittus1,3,4,5, Amanda Wilson7, E Wesley Ely1,3,8,5. 1. The Center for Quality Aging, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 2. The Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 3. The Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 4. The Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 5. Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN. 6. The Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 7. The Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 8. The Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Delirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2 minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10 seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: This was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65 years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3 hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI = 73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI = 84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI = 71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI = 81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI = 10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI = 5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI = 6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI = 7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability. CONCLUSIONS: In older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.
OBJECTIVES:Delirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2 minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10 seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: This was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65 years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3 hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI = 73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI = 84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI = 71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI = 81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI = 10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI = 5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI = 6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI = 7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability. CONCLUSIONS: In older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.
Authors: Joseph H Flaherty; James Rudolph; Ken Shay; Barbara Kamholz; Kenneth S Boockvar; Marianne Shaughnessy; Rita Shapiro; Joan Stein; Charlene Weir; Thomas Edes Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Amy J Graves; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; James S Powers; John Vernon; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Marilyn Bromley; Jeffrey M Caterino; Audrey Chun; Lowell W Gerson; Jason Greenspan; Ula Hwang; David P John; William L Lyons; Timothy F Platts-Mills; Betty Mortensen; Luna Ragsdale; Mark Rosenberg; Scott T Wilber Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jin H Han; Ayumi Shintani; Svetlana Eden; Alessandro Morandi; Laurence M Solberg; John Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-04-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Curtis N Sessler; Mark S Gosnell; Mary Jo Grap; Gretchen M Brophy; Pam V O'Neal; Kimberly A Keane; Eljim P Tesoro; R K Elswick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jin H Han; Eli E Zimmerman; Nathan Cutler; John Schnelle; Alessandro Morandi; Robert S Dittus; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Giuseppe Bellelli; Alessandro Morandi; Daniel H J Davis; Paolo Mazzola; Renato Turco; Simona Gentile; Tracy Ryan; Helen Cash; Fabio Guerini; Tiziana Torpilliesi; Francesco Del Santo; Marco Trabucchi; Giorgio Annoni; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jin H Han; Christina J Hayhurst; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Christopher G Hughes; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Jo Ellen Wilson; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: John P Corradi; Stephen Thompson; Jeffrey F Mather; Christine M Waszynski; Robert S Dicks Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Andrea M Yevchak; Kelly Doherty; Elizabeth G Archambault; Brittany Kelly; Jennifer R Fonda; James L Rudolph Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Jin H Han; Nathan E Brummel; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Jo Ellen Wilson; Xulei Liu; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Timothy D Girard; Maria E Carlo; Robert S Dittus; John F Schnelle; E Wesley Ely Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Daniel Davis; Giuseppe Bellelli; Rakesh C Arora; Gideon A Caplan; Barbara Kamholz; Ann Kolanowski; Donna Marie Fick; Stefan Kreisel; Alasdair MacLullich; David Meagher; Karen Neufeld; Pratik P Pandharipande; Sarah Richardson; Arjen J C Slooter; John P Taylor; Christine Thomas; Zoë Tieges; Andrew Teodorczuk; Philippe Voyer; James L Rudolph Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Jin H Han; David Meagher; Eduard Vasilevskis; Joaquim Cerejeira; Wolfgang Hasemann; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Giorgio Annoni; Marco Trabucchi; Giuseppe Bellelli Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.669