4.5 Article

Delirium subtype identification and the validation of the Delirium Rating Scale - Revised-98 (Dutch version) in hospitalized elderly patients

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 876-882

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1577

Keywords

delirium; DRS; reliability; subtype; treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Delirium is the most common acute neuropsychiatric disorder in hospitalized elderly. The Dutch version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) appears to be a reliable method to classify delirium. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the DRS-R-98 and to study clinical subtypes of delirium using the DRSR-98. Methods Patients received the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98, the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Confusion Assessment Method, and a clinical diagnosis of delirium according to DSM-IV criteria, and their relatives the Informant Questionnaire Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Results The DRS-R-98 validation cohort (n = 65) consisted of 23 patients with delirium, 22 patients with dementia, and 20 non-psychiatric comparison patients. For the delirium subtype study, a second cohort comprising 54 delirious patients was investigated. Median DRS-R-98 scores significantly distinguished delirium from dementia and no psychiatric disorder. Inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation 0.97) and internal consistency (Crohnbach's alpha 0.94) were high. Positive scores of DRS-R-98 item 4 (affect liability) and item 7 (motor agitation) predicted the presence of non-hypoactive delirium, with a specificity of 89% and a sensitivity of 57%. Conclusion The results show that the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98 is a valid and reliable measure of delirium severity and distinguishes patients with delirium from patients with dementia and comparison patients. Furthermore, the DRS-R-98 is able to exclude hypoactive delirium. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available