Florian F Grossmann1, Wolfgang Hasemann2, Reto W Kressig3, Roland Bingisser4, Christian H Nickel4. 1. University Hospital Basel, Emergency Department, Switzerland. Electronic address: florian.grossmann@usb.ch. 2. Department for Practice Development in Nursing and Allied Health Professions, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. 3. University Center for Medicine of Aging, Felix Platter Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 4. University Hospital Basel, Emergency Department, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium in older emergency department (ED) patients is associated with severe negative patient outcomes and its detection is challenging for ED clinicians. ED clinicians need easy tools for delirium detection. We aimed to test the performance criteria of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (mRASS) in identifying delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: The mRASS was applied to a sample of consecutive ED patients aged 65 or older by specially trained nurses during an 11-day period in November 2015. Reference standard delirium diagnosis was based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) criteria, and was established by geriatricians. Performance criteria were computed. Analyses were repeated in the subsamples of patients with and without dementia. RESULTS: Of 285 patients, 20 (7.0%) had delirium and 41 (14.4%) had dementia. The sensitivity of an mRASS other than 0 to detect delirium was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.48; 0.85), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.90; 0.96), positive likelihood ratio 10.31 (95% CI 6.06; 17.51), negative likelihood ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.16; 0.63). In the sub-sample of patients with dementia, sensitivity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 0.79), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.66; 0.93), positive likelihood ratio 3.27 (95% CI 1.25; 8.59), negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 1.06). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of the mRASS to detect delirium in older ED patients was low, especially in patients with dementia. Therefore its usefulness as a stand-alone screening tool is limited.
BACKGROUND:Delirium in older emergency department (ED) patients is associated with severe negative patient outcomes and its detection is challenging for ED clinicians. ED clinicians need easy tools for delirium detection. We aimed to test the performance criteria of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (mRASS) in identifying delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: The mRASS was applied to a sample of consecutive ED patients aged 65 or older by specially trained nurses during an 11-day period in November 2015. Reference standard delirium diagnosis was based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) criteria, and was established by geriatricians. Performance criteria were computed. Analyses were repeated in the subsamples of patients with and without dementia. RESULTS: Of 285 patients, 20 (7.0%) had delirium and 41 (14.4%) had dementia. The sensitivity of an mRASS other than 0 to detect delirium was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.48; 0.85), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.90; 0.96), positive likelihood ratio 10.31 (95% CI 6.06; 17.51), negative likelihood ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.16; 0.63). In the sub-sample of patients with dementia, sensitivity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 0.79), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.66; 0.93), positive likelihood ratio 3.27 (95% CI 1.25; 8.59), negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 1.06). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of the mRASS to detect delirium in older ED patients was low, especially in patients with dementia. Therefore its usefulness as a stand-alone screening tool is limited.
Authors: Wolfgang Hasemann; Florian F Grossmann; Rahel Stadler; Roland Bingisser; Dieter Breil; Martina Hafner; Reto W Kressig; Christian H Nickel Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-12-30 Impact factor: 3.397
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: Susan D Shenkin; Christopher Fox; Mary Godfrey; Najma Siddiqi; Steve Goodacre; John Young; Atul Anand; Alasdair Gray; Janet Hanley; Allan MacRaild; Jill Steven; Polly L Black; Zoë Tieges; Julia Boyd; Jacqueline Stephen; Christopher J Weir; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Jordan Oberhaus; Wei Wang; Angela M Mickle; Jennifer Becker; Catherine Tedeschi; Hannah R Maybrier; Ravi T Upadhyayula; Maxwell R Muench; Nan Lin; Eva M Schmitt; Sharon K Inouye; Michael S Avidan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Agneta H Calf; Maaike A Pouw; Barbara C van Munster; Johannes G M Burgerhof; Sophia E de Rooij; Nynke Smidt Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.668