Anita Hargrave1, Jesse Bastiaens2, James A Bourgeois2, John Neuhaus3, S Andrew Josephson4, Julia Chinn5, Melissa Lee5, Jacqueline Leung6, Vanja Douglas7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 6. Department of Anesthesia, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 7. Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: vanja.douglas@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend daily delirium monitoring of hospitalized patients. Available delirium-screening tools have not been validated for use by nurses among diverse inpatients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate the Nursing Delirium-Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) under these circumstances. METHODS: A blinded cross-sectional and quality-improvement study was conducted from August 2015-February 2016. Nurses׳ Nu-DESC scores were compared to delirium diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) criteria. A total of 405 consecutive hospitalized patients were included. Nu-DESC-positive (threshold score ≥2) patients were matched with equal numbers of Nu-DESC-negative patients, by sex, age, and nursing unit. Nurses recorded a Nu-DESC score for each patient on every 12-hour shift. A Nu-DESC-blinded evaluator interviewed patients for 2 consecutive days. Delirium diagnosis was determined by physicians using DSM-5 criteria applied to collected research data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were calculated. In an exploratory analysis, the performance of the Nu-DESC was analyzed with the addition of bedside measures of attention. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the Nu-DESC at a threshold of ≥2 was 42% (95% CI: 33-53%). Specificity was 98% (97-98%). At a threshold of ≥1, sensitivity was 67% (52-80%) and specificity 93% (90-95%). Similar results were found with the addition of attention tasks. CONCLUSION: The Nu-DESC is a specific delirium detection tool, but it is not sensitive at the usually proposed cut point of ≥2. Using a threshold of ≥1 or adding a test of attention increase sensitivity with a minor decrease in specificity. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend daily delirium monitoring of hospitalized patients. Available delirium-screening tools have not been validated for use by nurses among diverse inpatients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate the Nursing Delirium-Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) under these circumstances. METHODS: A blinded cross-sectional and quality-improvement study was conducted from August 2015-February 2016. Nurses׳ Nu-DESC scores were compared to delirium diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) criteria. A total of 405 consecutive hospitalized patients were included. Nu-DESC-positive (threshold score ≥2) patients were matched with equal numbers of Nu-DESC-negative patients, by sex, age, and nursing unit. Nurses recorded a Nu-DESC score for each patient on every 12-hour shift. A Nu-DESC-blinded evaluator interviewed patients for 2 consecutive days. Delirium diagnosis was determined by physicians using DSM-5 criteria applied to collected research data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were calculated. In an exploratory analysis, the performance of the Nu-DESC was analyzed with the addition of bedside measures of attention. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the Nu-DESC at a threshold of ≥2 was 42% (95% CI: 33-53%). Specificity was 98% (97-98%). At a threshold of ≥1, sensitivity was 67% (52-80%) and specificity 93% (90-95%). Similar results were found with the addition of attention tasks. CONCLUSION: The Nu-DESC is a specific delirium detection tool, but it is not sensitive at the usually proposed cut point of ≥2. Using a threshold of ≥1 or adding a test of attention increase sensitivity with a minor decrease in specificity. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Sophia E de Rooij; Barbara C van Munster; Johanna C Korevaar; Gerty Casteelen; Marieke J Schuurmans; Roos C van der Mast; Marcel Levi Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Vanja C Douglas; Christine S Hessler; Gurpreet Dhaliwal; John P Betjemann; Keiko A Fukuda; Lama R Alameddine; Rachael Lucatorto; S Claiborne Johnston; S Andrew Josephson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Elvira Kuhn; Xinyi Du; Keith McGrath; Sarah Coveney; Niamh O'Regan; Sarah Richardson; Andrew Teodorczuk; Louise Allan; Dan Wilson; Sharon K Inouye; Alasdair M J MacLullich; David Meagher; Carol Brayne; Suzanne Timmons; Daniel Davis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Felix Bartholmes; Nathalie M Malewicz; Melanie Ebel; Peter K Zahn; Christine H Meyer-Frießem Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Christopher G Hughes; Christina S Boncyk; Deborah J Culley; Lee A Fleisher; Jacqueline M Leung; David L McDonagh; Tong J Gan; Matthew D McEvoy; Timothy E Miller Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Honoria Ocagli; Daniele Bottigliengo; Giulia Lorenzoni; Danila Azzolina; Aslihan S Acar; Silvia Sorgato; Lucia Stivanello; Mario Degan; Dario Gregori Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Zohreh Amirajam; Elham Asadi-Noran; Behnam Molaei; Vahid Adiban; Mehdi Heidarzadeh; Mohammad Hassanpour-Darghah Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06