Claire M Motyl1, Long Ngo2,3, Wenxiao Zhou2, Yoojin Jung2, Douglas Leslie4, Marie Boltz5, Erica Husser5, Sharon K Inouye3,6,7, Donna Fick4,5, Edward R Marcantonio2,3,7. 1. University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York, USA. 2. Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. College of Nursing, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Aging Brain Center, Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Division of Gerontology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Systematic screening can improve detection of delirium, but lack of time is often cited as why such screening is not performed. We investigated the time required to implement four screening protocols that use the Ultra-Brief two-item screener for delirium (UB-2) and the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)-defined Delirium (3D-CAM), with and without a skip pattern that can further shorten the assessment. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and time required to complete four protocols: (1) full 3D-CAM on all patients, (2) 3D-CAM with skip on all patients, (3) UB-2, followed by the full 3D-CAM in "positives," and (4) UB-2, followed by the 3D-CAM with skip in "positives." DESIGN: Comparative efficiency simulation study using secondary data. SETTING: Two studies (3D-CAM and Researching Efficient Approaches to Delirium Identification (READI)) conducted at a large academic medical center (3D-CAM and READI) and a small community hospital (READI only). PARTICIPANTS: General medicine inpatients, aged 70 years and older (3D-CAM, n = 201; READI, n = 330). MEASUREMENTS: We used 3D-CAM data to simulate the items administered under each protocol and READI data to calculate median administration time per item. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and total administration time for each of the four protocols. RESULTS: The 3D-CAM and READI samples had similar characteristics, and all four protocols had similar simulated sensitivity and specificity. Mean administration times were 3 minutes 13 seconds for 3D-CAM, 2 minutes 19 seconds for 3D-CAM with skip, 1 minute 52 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM in positives, and 1 minute 14 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM with skip in positives, which was 1 minute 59 seconds faster than the 3D-CAM (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The UB-CAM, consisting of the UB-2, followed in positives by the 3D-CAM with skip pattern, is a time-efficient delirium screening protocol that holds promise for increasing systematic screening for delirium in hospitalized older adults.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Systematic screening can improve detection of delirium, but lack of time is often cited as why such screening is not performed. We investigated the time required to implement four screening protocols that use the Ultra-Brief two-item screener for delirium (UB-2) and the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)-defined Delirium (3D-CAM), with and without a skip pattern that can further shorten the assessment. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and time required to complete four protocols: (1) full 3D-CAM on all patients, (2) 3D-CAM with skip on all patients, (3) UB-2, followed by the full 3D-CAM in "positives," and (4) UB-2, followed by the 3D-CAM with skip in "positives." DESIGN: Comparative efficiency simulation study using secondary data. SETTING: Two studies (3D-CAM and Researching Efficient Approaches to Delirium Identification (READI)) conducted at a large academic medical center (3D-CAM and READI) and a small community hospital (READI only). PARTICIPANTS: General medicine inpatients, aged 70 years and older (3D-CAM, n = 201; READI, n = 330). MEASUREMENTS: We used 3D-CAM data to simulate the items administered under each protocol and READI data to calculate median administration time per item. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and total administration time for each of the four protocols. RESULTS: The 3D-CAM and READI samples had similar characteristics, and all four protocols had similar simulated sensitivity and specificity. Mean administration times were 3 minutes 13 seconds for 3D-CAM, 2 minutes 19 seconds for 3D-CAM with skip, 1 minute 52 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM in positives, and 1 minute 14 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM with skip in positives, which was 1 minute 59 seconds faster than the 3D-CAM (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The UB-CAM, consisting of the UB-2, followed in positives by the 3D-CAM with skip pattern, is a time-efficient delirium screening protocol that holds promise for increasing systematic screening for delirium in hospitalized older adults.
Authors: E W Ely; R Margolin; J Francis; L May; B Truman; R Dittus; T Speroff; S Gautam; G R Bernard; S K Inouye Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Donna M Fick; Sharon K Inouye; Caroline McDermott; Wenxiao Zhou; Long Ngo; Jackie Gallagher; Jane McDowell; Janice Penrod; Jonathan Siuta; Thomas Covaleski; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Heidi A B Smith; Jenny Boyd; D Catherine Fuchs; Kelly Melvin; Pamela Berry; Ayumi Shintani; Svetlana K Eden; Michelle K Terrell; Tonya Boswell; Karen Wolfram; Jenna Sopfe; Frederick E Barr; Pratik P Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; Amy J Graves; Alan B Storrow; John Shuster; E Wesley Ely Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Sippy Olarsch; Richard Moed Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Edward R Marcantonio; Donna M Fick; Yoojin Jung; Sharon K Inouye; Marie Boltz; Douglas L Leslie; Erica K Husser; Priyanka Shrestha; Amber Moore; Kimberlyann Sulmonte; Jonathan Siuta; Malaz Boustani; Long H Ngo Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 51.598
Authors: Douglas L Leslie; Donna M Fick; Amber Moore; Sharon K Inouye; Yoojin Jung; Long H Ngo; Marie Boltz; Erica Husser; Priyanka Shrestha; Malaz Boustani; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Simone Brefka; Gerhard Wilhelm Eschweiler; Dhayana Dallmeier; Michael Denkinger; Christoph Leinert Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 1.292
Authors: Antara Banerji; Jamie W Sleigh; Logan J Voss; Paul S Garcia; Amy L Gaskell Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 5.702