Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of delirium recognition with and without a clinical decision assessment system on outcomes of hospitalized older adults: Cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Early recognition of delirium is essential for effective management, but it often goes unrecognized, resulting in adverse outcomes. Clinical decision support systems can enhance adherence to guidelines and improve patient outcomes. We developed a mobile-based clinical decision assessment tool (3D-DST) based on the 3-minute diagnostic interview for confusion assessment method-defined delirium (3D-CAM). Implementing the 3D-DST may enhance delirium recognition and adherence to interventions among healthcare professionals, potentially improving outcomes in older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether improved recognition of delirium could lead to better clinical outcomes in older adults.

DESIGN

A cluster randomized controlled trial with pair-matching.

SETTING

A tertiary geriatric hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥65 years.

METHODS

Four general wards were paired and randomly assigned to the intervention group (two wards) or the control group (two wards). The intervention included routine delirium assessments by nurses using either the 3D-DST or the 3D-CAM, along with delirium prevention and intervention measures carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Outcomes measured included delirium incidence, duration, severity, length of stay, and adherence to the delirium assessment, prevention, and treatment protocol. A trained nursing researcher collected data on demographics, clinical characteristics, and primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

211 eligible patients participated (106 in the intervention group and 105 in the control group), with 21 identified as delirium-positive using the 3D-DST. The median Charlson comorbidity index score among older adults in the intervention group was 1 (1-2), compared to 2 (1-3) in the control group (P = 0.032). Nurses' adherence to delirium assessment was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (73 % vs. 31 %). The recognition rate of delirium among nurses was 89 % in the intervention group and 42 % in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in delirium duration (6 [3-9] vs. 7 [2-14], P = 0.967), incidence (8.5 % vs. 11.4 %, P = 0.500), severity (2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4], P = 0.891) or length of hospital stay (15 [14-18] vs. 18 [13-22], P = 0.568) between the intervention and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D-DST enhanced adherence to routine delirium recognition by nurses. However, effective strategies are urgently needed to strengthen multidisciplinary collaboration and enhance adherence to delirium management among healthcare professionals.

REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, Identifier: ChiCTR1900028402.

Delirium in Lower Limb Trauma: The Incidence and Risk Factors in a Prospective Observational Study

Background

Delirium poses a significant challenge in musculoskeletal trauma patients, particularly the elderly, contributing to elevated morbidity and mortality. Despite unclear pathogenesis, various risk factors have been identified. This prospective observational study, conducted in a tertiary center, aims to estimate delirium incidence and identify associated risk factors in adult patients undergoing lower limb trauma surgeries.

Methods

Between August 2021 and December 2022, 150 patients with lower limb trauma admitted for surgery were included. Initial assessments recorded Mini-Mental State Examination scores, Injury Severity Scores, and potential risk factors. Confusion Assessment Method scoring done preoperatively (excluding emergencies) and postoperatively on days 2 and 5 or at discharge. Daily delirium screening utilized Nursing 4-Abbreviated Trauma score, with severity assessed using CAM-Severity score. Risk factor analysis categorized patients into Group A (delirium) and Group B (non-delirium), with primary endpoint being delirium occurrence.

Results

The study revealed a 10% delirium incidence. Delirium severity ranged from mild to severe. The median age (in years) was 79 vs 46 in delirium and non-delirium group respectively. Delirium patients had longer hospital stay (13 vs 8, p value 0.011). Similarly, factors like female gender, delayed surgery, hyponatremia, hypoproteinaemia, increased injury severity, midazolam use during induction, multiple blood transfusions, and heightened postoperative pain intensity were found significant (p value < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study enhances our understanding of delirium in lower limb trauma patients undergoing surgeries. Identified risk factors offer insights for targeted interventions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive preoperative assessments and management strategies to reduce delirium incidence and improve patient outcomes.

Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds.

RESULTS

Full-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study.

Usefulness of the 4A's test for detecting delirium in critically ill patients: a multicenter prospective observation study

The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a robust and reliable instrument for discerning delirium within the specific context of the intensive care unit (ICU). Nonetheless, the CAM-ICU is burdened by various limitations, including a protracted learning curve and the need for frequent daily administration. The 4 A's Test (4AT) was formulated to assess delirium in hospitalized patients and may have distinct advantages over the CAM-ICU, particularly regarding practical applicability within the ICU bundle. This study was performed to assess the utility of the 4AT in detecting delirium in critically ill patients. This multicenter prospective observational study involved critically ill patients at four academic tertiary care hospitals in South Korea from June 2021 to September 2022. In total, 274 patients (median age, 64 years; 56.9% men) were included, and 75 (27.4%) developed delirium. The 4AT showed good performance in detecting ICU delirium (area under the curve, 0.879; P < 0.001). The 4AT showed a sensitivity of 74.0%, specificity of 95.4%, positive predictive value of 77.5%, negative predictive value of 94.6%, and accuracy of 91.7% for ICU detection of delirium. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the CAM-ICU for detecting ICU delirium were 71.3%, 97.1%, 83.8%, 94.1%, and 92.6%, respectively. The 4AT showed acceptable reliability and validity for detecting ICU delirium in critically ill patients. Because the 4AT is simpler and easier to learn, this scale could be a useful alternative to the CAM-ICU for detecting delirium in critically ill patients.

Evaluation of Delirium Among Elders in the Emergency Department: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals underestimate the recognition of delirium in emergency departments (EDs). In these settings, between 57% and 83% of cases of delirium go undetected. When delirium occurs, it causes an increase in the length of hospitalization, readmissions within 30 days, and mortality. No studies were carried out in Italy to assess the prevalence of delirium among elders in EDs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of the risk of delirium in people 65 years and older hospitalized in the ED for a minimum of 8 hours. The study's secondary goal was to identify the variables that influenced the risk of delirium.

METHOD

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in 2 EDs. The risk of delirium was assessed using the delirium screening tool 4 A's test. One hundred patients were enrolled. Data collection took place from June 28 to August 31, 2022.

RESULTS

The risk of delirium was detected in 29% of the sample, whereas the risk of cognitive impairment was 13%. The use of psychotropic drugs increased the risk of delirium by 11.8 times (odds ratio [OR], 11.80; P = .003). Bed confinement increased the risk by 4.3 times (OR, 4.31; P = .009). Being dehydrated increased the risk of onset by 4.6 times (OR, 4.62; P = .010). Having dementia increased the risk of delirium manifestation by 4.4 times (OR, 4.35; P = .021).

DISCUSSION

The risk of delirium was detected in a considerable portion of the sample. The results of this study can be used by health care professionals to implement preventive measures as well as support clinical judgment and establish priorities of care for patients at risk of developing delirium.

Current Trends for Delirium Screening within the Emergency Department

Delirium is an acute neurological disorder that involves attention and cognition. It is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality among older people (>65 years old). In the context of the Emergency Department (ED), it is frequently experienced by patients but often not recognized. Literature studies have identified some screening instruments for an initial evaluation of delirium. Most of these tools have not been validated yet in the context of emergencies, but, in other settings, they were very useful for assessing and maximizing the recognition of this condition among older patients. We conducted a review of the literature, including randomized control trials, clinical and observational studies, and research studies published in recent years, confirming that most of the screening tools for delirium used in the intensive care unit (ICU) or the geriatric department have not been tested in the ED, and the ideal timing and form of the delirium assessment process for older adults have not been defined yet. The aim of our review is to summarize the updated evidence about the screening tools for delirium in the context of the ED, due to the fact that overcrowding of the ED and the stressful condition of emergency situations (that contribute to the onset of delirium) could expose older patients to a high risk of complications and mortality if delirium is not promptly recognized. In conclusion, we support the evidence that delirium is a current and real condition that emergency physicians have to face daily, and we are aware that more research is needed to explore this field in order to improve the overall outcomes of older patients admitted to the ED.