Jin H Han1, Amanda Wilson2, Amy J Graves3, Ayumi Shintani4, John F Schnelle5, E Wesley Ely6. 1. Center for Quality Aging, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: Jin.h.han@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Urologic Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan. 5. Center for Quality Aging, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Health Care Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Center for Quality Aging, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Health Care Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Delirium in the emergency department (ED) is an emerging field of research. Most ED research infrastructures utilize lay personnel to collect data, but delirium assessments that can be reliably performed by nonphysicians are lacking. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the modified Brief Confusion Assessment Method (modified bCAM) for this purpose. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study that enrolled ED patients 65years or older. The original bCAM was a brief (<2minutes) delirium assessment that assessed for inattention by asking the patient to recite the months backward from December to July. It was modified by adding the Vigilance A ("squeeze my hand when you hear the letter 'A'") to the inattention assessment. The elements of the modified bCAM were performed by a research assistant (RA) and emergency physician. The reference standard for delirium was a psychiatrist assessment performed within 3hours using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessors were blinded to each other. Sensitivities and specificities with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the RA and emergency physician. RESULTS: Of the 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12%) were delirious. The modified bCAM was 82.0% (95% CI, 71.4%-92.6%) sensitive and 96.1% (95% CI, 94.0%-98.1%) specific when performed by the RA. The emergency physician's modified bCAM exhibited similar diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: The modified bCAM may be a feasible and accurate method for nonphysicians to assess for delirium. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVES:Delirium in the emergency department (ED) is an emerging field of research. Most ED research infrastructures utilize lay personnel to collect data, but delirium assessments that can be reliably performed by nonphysicians are lacking. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the modified Brief Confusion Assessment Method (modified bCAM) for this purpose. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study that enrolled ED patients 65years or older. The original bCAM was a brief (<2minutes) delirium assessment that assessed for inattention by asking the patient to recite the months backward from December to July. It was modified by adding the Vigilance A ("squeeze my hand when you hear the letter 'A'") to the inattention assessment. The elements of the modified bCAM were performed by a research assistant (RA) and emergency physician. The reference standard for delirium was a psychiatrist assessment performed within 3hours using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessors were blinded to each other. Sensitivities and specificities with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the RA and emergency physician. RESULTS: Of the 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12%) were delirious. The modified bCAM was 82.0% (95% CI, 71.4%-92.6%) sensitive and 96.1% (95% CI, 94.0%-98.1%) specific when performed by the RA. The emergency physician's modified bCAM exhibited similar diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: The modified bCAM may be a feasible and accurate method for nonphysicians to assess for delirium. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin G Cole; Jane McCusker; François Bellavance; François J Primeau; Robert F Bailey; Michael J Bonnycastle; Johanne Laplante Journal: CMAJ Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jin H Han; Svetlana Eden; Ayumi Shintani; Alessandro Morandi; John Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jin H Han; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Xulei Liu; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Zoë Tieges; Alasdair M J Maclullich; Atul Anand; Claire Brookes; Marica Cassarino; Margaret O'connor; Damien Ryan; Thomas Saller; Rakesh C Arora; Yue Chang; Kathryn Agarwal; George Taffet; Terence Quinn; Susan D Shenkin; Rose Galvin Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jin H Han; Alex Chen; Eduard E Vasilevskis; John F Schnelle; E Wesley Ely; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Ryan D Morrison; Timothy P Ryan; J Scott Daniels; Jeff J Sutherland; Sandra F Simmons Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Nada Hammouda; Elizabeth A Linton; Michelle Doering; Ugochi K Ohuabunwa; Kelly J Ko; William W Hung; Manish N Shah; Lee A Lindquist; Kevin Biese; Daniel Wei; Libby Hoy; Lori Nerbonne; Ula Hwang; Scott M Dresden Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 5.221
Authors: Jo Ellen Wilson; Matthew F Mart; Colm Cunningham; Yahya Shehabi; Timothy D Girard; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Arjen J C Slooter; E Wesley Ely Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: J Brennan McNeil; Christopher G Hughes; Timothy Girard; Lorraine B Ware; E Wesley Ely; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Jin H Han Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Justin K Banerdt; Kondwelani Mateyo; Li Wang; Christopher J Lindsell; Elisabeth D Riviello; Deanna Saylor; Douglas C Heimburger; E Wesley Ely Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240