Thomas H McCoy1, Leslie Snapper2, Theodore A Stern3, Roy H Perlis4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Human Genetic Research, Center for Experimental Drugs and Diagnostics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Avery D. Weisman Psychiatry Consultation Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Human Genetic Research, Center for Experimental Drugs and Diagnostics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 3. Avery D. Weisman Psychiatry Consultation Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Human Genetic Research, Center for Experimental Drugs and Diagnostics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: rperlis@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome that portends poor prognosis and represents a significant burden to the health care system. Although detection allows for efficacious treatment, the diagnosis is frequently overlooked. This underdiagnosis makes delirium an appealing target for translational predictive algorithmic modeling; however, such approaches require accurate identification in clinical training datasets. METHODS: Using the Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database, encompassing health claims for Massachusetts residents for 2012, we calculated the rate of delirium diagnosis in index hospitalizations by reported ICD-9 diagnosis code. We performed a review of published studies formally assessing delirium to establish an expected rate of delirium when formally assessed. Secondarily, we reported a sociodemographic comparison of cases and noncases. RESULTS: Rates of delirium reported in the literature vary widely, from 3.6-73% with a mean of 23.6%. The statewide claims data (Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database) identified the rate of delirium among index hospitalizations to be only 2.1%. For Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database hospitalizations, delirium was coded in 2.8% of patients >65 years old and for 1.2% of patients ≤65. CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of delirium in claims data may reflect a failure to diagnose, a failure to code, or a lower rate in community hospitals. The relative absence of the phenotype from large databases may limit the utility of data-driven predictive modeling to the problem of delirium recognition.
BACKGROUND:Delirium is an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome that portends poor prognosis and represents a significant burden to the health care system. Although detection allows for efficacious treatment, the diagnosis is frequently overlooked. This underdiagnosis makes delirium an appealing target for translational predictive algorithmic modeling; however, such approaches require accurate identification in clinical training datasets. METHODS: Using the Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database, encompassing health claims for Massachusetts residents for 2012, we calculated the rate of delirium diagnosis in index hospitalizations by reported ICD-9 diagnosis code. We performed a review of published studies formally assessing delirium to establish an expected rate of delirium when formally assessed. Secondarily, we reported a sociodemographic comparison of cases and noncases. RESULTS: Rates of delirium reported in the literature vary widely, from 3.6-73% with a mean of 23.6%. The statewide claims data (Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database) identified the rate of delirium among index hospitalizations to be only 2.1%. For Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database hospitalizations, delirium was coded in 2.8% of patients >65 years old and for 1.2% of patients ≤65. CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of delirium in claims data may reflect a failure to diagnose, a failure to code, or a lower rate in community hospitals. The relative absence of the phenotype from large databases may limit the utility of data-driven predictive modeling to the problem of delirium recognition.
Authors: Donna M Fick; Andrew D Auerbach; Michael S Avidan; Jan Busby-Whitehead; E Wesley Ely; Richard N Jones; Edward R Marcantonio; Dale M Needham; Pratik Pandharipande; Thomas N Robinson; Eva M Schmitt; Thomas G Travison; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Miles Berger; Niccolò Terrando; S Kendall Smith; Jeffrey N Browndyke; Mark F Newman; Joseph P Mathew Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Bryan D James; Robert S Wilson; Ana W Capuano; Patricia A Boyle; Raj C Shah; Melissa Lamar; E Wesley Ely; David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Eveline L van Velthuijsen; Sandra M G Zwakhalen; Wubbo J Mulder; Frans R J Verhey; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Bryan D James; Robert S Wilson; Ana W Capuano; Patricia A Boyle; Raj C Shah; Melissa Lamar; E Wesley Ely; David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Farhaan S Vahidy; Arvind B Bambhroliya; Jennifer R Meeks; Omar Rahman; E Wesley Ely; Arjen J C Slooter; Jon E Tyson; Charles C Miller; Louise D McCullough; Sean I Savitz; Babar Khan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eveline L van Velthuijsen; Sandra M G Zwakhalen; Ron M J Warnier; Ton Ambergen; Wubbo J Mulder; Frans R J Verhey; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 2.463