Dataset Information

Family Identification of Delirium in the Emergency Department in Patients With and Without Dementia: Validity of the Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM-CAM).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the ability of the family-rated Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM-CAM) to identify delirium in the emergency department (ED) among patients with and without dementia, as compared to the reference-standard Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

Design

Validation study.

Setting

Urban academic ED.

Participants

Dyads of ED patients, aged 70 years and older, and their family caregivers (N = 108 dyads).

Measurements

A trained reference standard interviewer performed a cognitive screen, delirium symptom assessment, and scored the CAM. The caregiver self-administered the FAM-CAM. Dementia was assessed using the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly and the medical record. For concurrent validity, performance of the FAM-CAM was compared to the CAM. For predictive validity, clinical outcomes (ED visits, hospitalization, and mortality) over 6 months were compared in FAM-CAM positive and negative patients, controlling for age, sex, comorbidity, and cognitive status.

Results

Among the 108 patients, 30 (28%) were CAM positive for delirium and 58 (54%) presented with dementia. The FAM-CAM had a specificity of 83% and a negative predictive value of 83%. Most false negatives (n = 9 of 13, 69%) were due to caregivers not identifying the inattention criteria for delirium on the FAM-CAM. In patients with dementia, sensitivity was higher than in patients without (61% vs 43%). In adjusted models, a hospitalization in the following 6 months was more than three times as likely in FAM-CAM positive compared to negative patients (odds ratio = 3.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.2-9.3).

Conclusions

Among patients with and without dementia, the FAM-CAM shows qualities that are important in the ED setting for identification of delirium. Using the FAM-CAM as part of a systematic screening strategy for the ED, in which families' assessments could supplement healthcare professionals' assessments, is promising. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:983-990, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Mailhot T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7370702 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDelirium in emergency department (ED) patients occurs frequently and often remains unrecognized. Most instruments for delirium detection are complex and therefore unfeasible for the ED. The aims of this pilot study were first, to confirm our hypothesis that there is an unmet need for formal delirium assessment by comparing informal delirium ratings of ED staff with formal delirium assessments performed by trained research assistants. Second, to test the feasibility of an algorithm for delirium screening, detection and management, which includes the newly developed modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED) at the ED bedside. Third, to test interrater reliability of the mCAM-ED.MethodsThis was a pilot study with a pre-post-test design with two data collection periods before and after the implementation of the algorithm. Consecutive ED patients aged 65 years and older were screened and assessed in the ED of a tertiary care center by trained research assistants. The delirium detection rate of informal ratings by nurses and physicians was compared with the standardized mCAM-ED assessment performed by the research assistants. To show the feasibility at the ED bedside, defined as adherence of ED staff to the algorithm, only post-test data were used. Additionally, the ED nurses' assessments were analyzed qualitatively. To investigate the agreement between research assistants and the reference standard, the two data sets were combined.ResultsIn total, 207 patients were included in this study. We found that informal delirium assessment was inappropriate, even after a teaching intervention: Sensitivity of nurses to detect delirium without formal assessment was 0.27 pretest and 0.40 post-test, whilst sensitivity of physicians' informal rating was 0.45 pre-test and 0.6 post-test. ED staff demonstrated high adherence to the algorithm (76.5%). Research assistants assessing delirium with the mCAM-ED demonstrated a high agreement compared to the reference standard (kappa = 0.729).ConclusionsInformal assessment of delirium is inadequate. The mCAM-ED proved to be useful at the ED bedside. Performance criteria need to be tested in further studies. The mCAM-ED may contribute to early identification of delirious ED patients.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the emergency department (ED), health care providers miss delirium approximately 75% of the time, because they do not routinely screen for this syndrome. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a brief (<1 minute) delirium assessment that may be feasible for use in the ED. The study objective was to determine its validity and reliability in older ED patients.MethodsIn this prospective observational cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older were enrolled at an academic, tertiary care ED from July 2009 to February 2012. An emergency physician (EP) and research assistants (RAs) performed the CAM-ICU. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive (~30 minutes) psychiatrist assessment using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessments were blinded to each other and were conducted within 3 hours. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were calculated for both the EP and the RAs using the psychiatrist's assessment as the reference standard. Kappa values between the EP and RAs were also calculated to measure reliability.ResultsOf 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12.3%) had delirium. The median age was 73.5 years old (interquartile range [IQR] = 69 to 80 years), 202 (49.8%) were female, and 57 (14.0%) were nonwhite. The CAM-ICU's sensitivities were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3% to 82.5%) and 68.0% (95% CI = 54.2% to 79.2%) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The CAM-ICU's specificity was 98.6% (95% CI = 96.8% to 99.4%) for both raters. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.28 (95% CI = 0.18 to 0.44) and 0.32 (95% CI = 0.22 to 0.49) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 51.3 (95% CI = 21.1 to 124.5) and 48.4 (95% CI = 19.9 to 118.0), respectively. The kappa between the EP and RAs was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.98), indicating excellent interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, the CAM-ICU is highly specific, and a positive test is nearly diagnostic for delirium when used by both the EP and RAs. However, the CAM-ICU's sensitivity was modest, and a negative test decreased the likelihood of delirium by a small amount. The consequences of a false-negative CAM-ICU are unknown and deserve further study.