Tianne Numan1, Mark van den Boogaard2, Adriaan M Kamper3, Paul J T Rood2, Linda M Peelen1,4, Arjen J C Slooter1. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Section of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate to what extent delirium experts agree on the diagnosis of delirium when independently assessing exactly the same information and to evaluate the sensitivity of delirium screening tools in routine daily practice of clinical nurses. DESIGN: Prospective observational longitudinal study. SETTING: Three medical centers in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly postoperative adults (n = 167). MEASUREMENTS: A researcher examined participants daily (Postoperative Day 1-3) for delirium using a standardized cognitive assessment and interview including the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 as global impression without any cut-off values that was recorded on video. Two delirium experts independently evaluated the videos and clinical information from the last 24 hours in the participants' record and classified each assessment as delirious, possibly delirious, or not delirious. Interrater agreement between the delirium experts was determined using weighted Cohen's kappa. When there was no consensus, a third expert was consulted. Final classification was based on median score and compared with the results of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit and Delirium Observation Scale that clinical nurses administered. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four postoperative assessments of 167 participants were included. The overall kappa was 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.53-0.68). There was no agreement between the experts for 89 (21.0%) assessments and a third delirium expert was needed for the final classification. Delirium screening that nurses performed detected 32% of the assessments that the experts diagnosed as (possibly) delirious. CONCLUSION: There was considerable disagreement in classification of delirium by experts who independently assessed exactly the same information, showing the difficulty of delirium diagnosis. Furthermore, the sensitivity of daily delirium screening by clinical nurses was poor. Future research should focus on development of objective instruments to diagnose delirium.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate to what extent delirium experts agree on the diagnosis of delirium when independently assessing exactly the same information and to evaluate the sensitivity of delirium screening tools in routine daily practice of clinical nurses. DESIGN: Prospective observational longitudinal study. SETTING: Three medical centers in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly postoperative adults (n = 167). MEASUREMENTS: A researcher examined participants daily (Postoperative Day 1-3) for delirium using a standardized cognitive assessment and interview including the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 as global impression without any cut-off values that was recorded on video. Two delirium experts independently evaluated the videos and clinical information from the last 24 hours in the participants' record and classified each assessment as delirious, possibly delirious, or not delirious. Interrater agreement between the delirium experts was determined using weighted Cohen's kappa. When there was no consensus, a third expert was consulted. Final classification was based on median score and compared with the results of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit and Delirium Observation Scale that clinical nurses administered. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four postoperative assessments of 167 participants were included. The overall kappa was 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.53-0.68). There was no agreement between the experts for 89 (21.0%) assessments and a third delirium expert was needed for the final classification. Delirium screening that nurses performed detected 32% of the assessments that the experts diagnosed as (possibly) delirious. CONCLUSION: There was considerable disagreement in classification of delirium by experts who independently assessed exactly the same information, showing the difficulty of delirium diagnosis. Furthermore, the sensitivity of daily delirium screening by clinical nurses was poor. Future research should focus on development of objective instruments to diagnose delirium.
Authors: Phillip E Vlisides; Aleda Thompson; Bryan S Kunkler; Hannah R Maybrier; Michael S Avidan; George A Mashour Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Phillip E Vlisides; Keith M Vogt; Dinesh Pal; Eric Schnell; William M Armstead; Ansgar M Brambrink; Philip Kuo; Priscilla Nelson; Susana Vacas; Nicolai Goettel; Linda S Aglio; Ehab Farag; Reza Gorji; Paul S García; Ines P Koerner Journal: J Neurosurg Anesthesiol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.956
Authors: Meike van Sleuwen; Haoqi Sun; Christine Eckhardt; Anudeepthi Neelagiri; Ryan A Tesh; Mike Westmeijer; Luis Paixao; Subapriya Rajan; Parimala Velpula Krishnamurthy; Pooja Sikka; Michael J Leone; Ezhil Panneerselvam; Syed A Quadri; Oluwaseun Akeju; Eyal Y Kimchi; M Brandon Westover Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Atsushi Yoshimura; Carrie Goodson; Jordan T Johns; Maxwell M Towe; Esme S Irvine; Nada A Rendradjaja; Laura K Max; Andrew LaFlam; Emily C Ledford; Julia Probert; Zoë Tieges; David H Edwin; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Charles W Hogue; Martin A Lindquist; Ahmet Gurakar; Karin J Neufeld; Atsushi Kamiya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sharon K Inouye; Michael Simon Avidan; Hannah R Maybrier; Angela M Mickle; Krisztina E Escallier; Nan Lin; Eva M Schmitt; Ravi T Upadhyayula; Troy S Wildes; George A Mashour; Kerry Palihnich Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John R Green; Jane Smith; Elizabeth Teale; Michelle Collinson; Michael S Avidan; Eva M Schmitt; Sharon K Inouye; John Young Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Zoë Tieges; David J Stott; Robert Shaw; Elaine Tang; Lisa-Marie Rutter; Eva Nouzova; Nikki Duncan; Caoimhe Clarke; Christopher J Weir; Valentina Assi; Hannah Ensor; Jennifer H Barnett; Jonathan Evans; Samantha Green; Kirsty Hendry; Meigan Thomson; Jenny McKeever; Duncan G Middleton; Stuart Parks; Tim Walsh; Alexander J Weir; Elizabeth Wilson; Tara Quasim; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 3.240