Breathing Pattern Assessment Tool as a new screening tool to identify dysfunctional breathing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farnam Barati Sedeh ◽  
Anna Von Bülow ◽  
Vibeke Backer ◽  
Uffe Bødtger ◽  
Ulrik Søes Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Breathing Pattern ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Dysfunctional Breathing

The Delirium Observation Screening Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

2020 ◽  
pp. 105477382096123
Author(s):  
Jinkyung Park ◽  
Eunhye Jeong ◽  
Juneyoung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Hierarchical Regression ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Dos Scale

Delirium is a reversible impairment of metabolism in the human brain. Early detection is important, and an effective screening tool for nurses is crucial. The Delirium Observation Screening (DOS) scale is one such screening tool; however, its diagnostic test accuracy has not yet been thoroughly examined. This study, therefore, aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the scale through a systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2019, a search was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycARTICLES databases, and following a review against pre-defined eligibility criteria, eight studies were finally included. The quality assessment tool of diagnostic accuracy studies was applied to each study and a hierarchical regression model was used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity (90%; 76%–97%, CI 95%) and specificity (92%; 88%–94%, CI 95%). The findings indicated a high diagnostic test accuracy for the DOS scale.

scholarly journals P131: Emergency department falls risk management screening tool comparison

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S121-S122
Author(s):  
R. Tomlinson ◽  
T. Yokota ◽  
P. Jaggi ◽  
C. Kilburn ◽  
D. Bakken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Procedural Sedation ◽  
Patients At Risk

Introduction: Emergency Department (ED) fall risk screening has been newly implemented in Alberta based on Accreditation Canada requirements. Two existing inpatient tools failed to include certain ED risk conditions. One tool graded unconsciousness as no risk for falling, and neither considered intoxication or sedation. This led to the development of a new fall risk management screening tool, the FRM (Tool1). This study compared Tool1 with inpatient utilized Schmid Fall Risk Assessment Tool (Tool2) and the validated Hendrich II Fall Risk Model (Tool3). Methods: Patients (≥17 years old) in a tertiary care adult ED with any of the following; history of falling in the last 12 months, elderly/frail, incontinence, impaired gait, mobility assist device, confusion/disorientation, procedural sedation, intoxication/sedated, or unconscious were included. Forms were randomized to score patients using different paired screening tools: Tool1 paired with either Tool2 or Tool3. Percent agreement (PA) between the tools based on identification of a patient at either risk/no risk for falling; higher PA indicating more tool homogeneity. Results: A total of 928 screening forms were completed within our 8-week study period; 452 and 443 comparing Tool1 to Tool2 and Tool1 to Tool3, respectively. Thirty-two forms included only Tool1 scores, excluding them from comparative analysis. The average patient age (n=895) was 64.8±21.4 years. Tool1 identified 66.4% of patients at risk, whereas Tool2 and Tool3 identified only 19.2% and 31.4%, respectively. Tool1 and 2 had a PA of 50.2%, whereas Tool1 and Tool3 had a PA of 65.9%. Conclusion: The FRM tool had higher agreement with the validated assessment tool, identifying patients at risk for falling but better identified patients presenting with intoxication, need for procedural sedation and unconsciousness. The other tools generally miss these common ED conditions, putting these patients at risk. Validation and reliability assessments of the FRM tool are warranted.

scholarly journals Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathania Wonoputri ◽  
Julistio T. B. Djais ◽  
Ina Rosalina
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Severe Malnutrition ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Hospitalized Children ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Strong Kids ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Simple Screening

Background. Malnutrition in hospitalized children can be prevented if children with risk of malnutrition are identified. Every hospital is recommended to have a standard nutritional screening tool. Numerous simple screening tools have been developed, namely Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS), Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), and Screening Tool for Risk on Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONG-kids). None has been accepted as a universal tool. Our study aims to determine the best screening tools compared to Subjective Global Nutrition Assessment (SGNA), an assessment tool which is more complex as our gold standard.Methods. This diagnostic study involved 116 patients aged 1–15 years. Three screening tools and SGNA were examined to each subject. Statistical analysis was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) by results from screening tools divided into low and moderate-high risk of malnutrition compared to results from SGNA divided into no and moderate-severe malnutrition.Results. PYMS showed superior agreement to SGNA resulting in sensitivity 95.32%, specificity 76.92%, positive LR 4.13, and negative LR 0.061. STAMP resulted in sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR, respectively, as 100%, 11.54%, 1.13, and 0 and STRONG-kids resulted in 100%, 7.7%, 1.083, and 0.Conclusion. PYMS was the most reliable screening tool.

Development of A Simple Menstrual Migraine Screening Tool for Obstetric and Gynecology Clinics: The Menstrual Migraine Assessment Tool

2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 1419-1425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart J. Tepper ◽  
Mary Zatochill ◽  
Marjorie Szeto ◽  
Fred Sheftell ◽  
Deborah E. Tepper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Menstrual Migraine

scholarly journals DoloTest in General Practice Study: Sensitivity and Specificity Screening for Depression

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Kim Kristiansen ◽  
Pernille Lyngholm-Kjaerby ◽  
Claus Moe
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Major Depression Inventory ◽  
Hrqol Assessment

Background. Coexistence of pain and depression has significant impact on the patient’s quality of life and treatment outcome. DoloTest is a pain and HRQoL assessment tool developed to provide shared understanding between the clinician and the patient of the condition by a visual profile. Aim. To find the sensitivity and specificity of DoloTest as a screening tool for depression for patients in primary care. Methods. All patients coming to a primary care clinic were asked to fill in a DoloTest and a Major Depression Inventory. Results. 715 (68.5%) of 1044 patients entered the study. 34.4% came due to pain. 16.1% met depression criteria, and 26.8% of patients coming due to pain met criteria for depression. 65.6% of the men and 54.2% of the women meeting the criteria for depression came due to pain. Depressed patients had statistically significant higher scores on all DoloTest domains. Selecting the cutoff value for the domain “low spirits” to be “65” (0–100) for depression gave a sensitivity of 78% (70–85%) and a specificity of 95% (93–96%) for meeting depression criteria. Conclusion. DoloTest can with a high sensitivity and specificity identify persons meeting criteria for depression and is an easy-to-use screening tool to identify patients with the coexistence of pain and depression.

scholarly journals A Participatory Approach to Develop the Power Mobility Screening Tool and the Power Mobility Clinical Driving Assessment Tool

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepan C. Kamaraj ◽  
Brad E. Dicianno ◽  
Rory A. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assistive Device ◽  
Multicenter Studies ◽  
Powered Wheelchair ◽  
Driving Skills ◽  
Bodily Function ◽  
Training Protocols

The electric powered wheelchair (EPW) is an indispensable assistive device that increases participation among individuals with disabilities. However, due to lack of standardized assessment tools, developing evidence based training protocols for EPW users to improve driving skills has been a challenge. In this study, we adopt the principles of participatory research and employ qualitative methods to develop the Power Mobility Screening Tool (PMST) and Power Mobility Clinical Driving Assessment (PMCDA). Qualitative data from professional experts and expert EPW users who participated in a focus group and a discussion forum were used to establish content validity of the PMCDA and the PMST. These tools collectively could assess a user’s current level of bodily function and their current EPW driving capacity. Further multicenter studies are necessary to evaluate the psychometric properties of these tests and develop EPW driving training protocols based on these assessment tools.

Utility of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool as a Screening Tool for Predicting Osteoporosis in Indian Men

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khurshid A. Bhat ◽  
Manisha Kakaji ◽  
Ashish Awasthi ◽  
Karambir Kumar ◽  
Kshtij Mishra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Indian Men

scholarly journals A114 DEVELOPING AND VALIDATING A PATIENT RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL TO PREDICT POST-ERCP PANCREATITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 93-94
Author(s):  
R A MacMillan ◽  
T Ponich
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
Prophylactic Measures

Abstract Background Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), the most common complication of ERCP, can lead to significant patient morbidity and even mortality. Both American (ASGE) and European (ESGE) guidelines emphasize the importance of assessing PEP risk among patients about to undergo ERCP so appropriate preventative measures can be initiated. Though multiple PEP risk factors have been identified, an ideal risk assessment tool has not yet been developed that accurately predicts PEP risk among ERCP patients. An ideal PEP risk factor screening tool would be one that most sensitively identifies patients likely to benefit from PEP preventative measures. We have developed a patient PEP risk screening tool based on both ASGE and ESGE guidelines (Table 1) and analyzed its accuracy predicting PEP rates in our clinical practice. Aims We investigated whether the ERCP patient and procedural risk factors listed in the ASGE and ESGE guidelines were linked to PEP rates using a novel PEP risk screening tool in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods Retrospective chart reviews of patients undergoing ERCP were performed within a single clinician’s practice at the London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, between January 2016 and October 2019 to: 1) assess the proportion of patients identified as high PEP risk using our novel PEP risk screening tool; 2) determine whether a high PEP risk score using this tool was linked to higher PEP rates following ERCP; and 3) identify the absolute score threshold that best delineates patients at higher risk. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between high PEP risk identified via screening and the actual PEP rate following ERCP. Results Five hundred sixty-one patients who underwent ERCP were assessed using the new PEP risk screening tool. Among those patients, 6.6% (37/561) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. Using the screening tool, 79.5% (446/561) were identified as high risk, using a cut-off score of 1; the score with the highest sensitivity (95%) and specificity (22%) combination. Identifying high PEP risk patients at this cut-off was significantly linked to increased PEP rates in patients who underwent ERCP (X2 = 5.5; df = 1, p < .05). Conclusions Using a cut-off score of 1, the PEP risk screening tool was very sensitive, but relatively non-specific at identifying patients who went on to develop post-ERCP pancreatitis. We hope that, based on these findings, high-risk patient identification can be improved, so more aggressive and appropriately-targeted prophylactic measures against PEP can be provided. Funding Agencies None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document