4.5 Article

Performance of The modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale in Identifying Delirium in Older ED Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 1324-1326

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.05.025

关键词

Delirium; Dementia; Emergency medicine; Emergency nursing; Diagnostic testing; Psychometrics; Level of consciousness; Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据