scholarly journals Validation of the 4AT tool for delirium assessment in specialist palliative care settings: protocol of a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Arnold ◽  
Anne M. Finucane ◽  
Juliet A. Spiller ◽  
Zoë Tieges ◽  
Alasdair M.J. MacLullich
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Delirium Assessment ◽  
Standard Assessment ◽  
Accuracy Study

Background: Delirium is a serious and distressing neuropsychiatric condition, which is prevalent across all palliative care settings. Hypoactive delirium is particularly common, but difficult to recognize, partly due to overlapping symptoms with depression and dementia.  Delirium screening tools can lead to earlier identification and hence better management of patients. The 4AT (4 ‘A’s Test) is a brief tool for delirium detection, designed for use in clinical practice. It has been validated in 17 studies in over 3,700 patients. The test is currently used in specialist palliative care units, but has not been validated in this setting.  The aim of the study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection against a reference standard, in hospice inpatients. Methods: 240 participants will be recruited from the inpatient units of two hospices in Scotland. If a patient lacks capacity to consent, agreement will be sought from a legal proxy.  Each participant will complete the 4AT and a reference standard assessment based on the diagnostic delirium criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders (DSM-5). This will be supplemented by tests of cognition and  attention, including reverse days of the week, counting down from 20 to 1, Vigilance 'A', the Observational Scale for Level of Arousal, the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98. The assessments will be conducted in a randomized order by two independent clinicians, who will be blinded to the results until both are complete. Primary outcomes will be the sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT in detecting delirium. Discussion: The findings will inform clinical practice regarding delirium assessment in palliative care settings. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN97417474 (21/02/2020).

scholarly journals Observed Differences in Diagnostic Test Accuracy between Patient Subgroups: Is It Real or Due to Reference Standard Misclassification?

2007 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 1725-1729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corné Biesheuvel ◽  
Les Irwig ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Target Condition ◽  
Test Sensitivity ◽  
The Past ◽  
Patient Subgroups

Abstract Before a new test is introduced in clinical practice, its accuracy should be assessed. In the past decade, researchers have put an increased emphasis on exploring differences in test sensitivity and specificity between patient subgroups. If the reference standard is imperfect and the prevalence of the target condition differs among subgroups, apparent differences in test sensitivity and specificity between subgroups may be caused by reference standard misclassification. We provide guidance on how to determine whether observed differences may be explained by reference standard misclassification. Such misclassification may be ascertained by examining how the apparent sensitivity and specificity change with the prevalence of the target condition in the subgroups.

scholarly journals The 4 ‘A’s test for detecting delirium in acute medical patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (40) ◽  
pp. 1-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alasdair MJ MacLullich ◽  
Susan D Shenkin ◽  
Steve Goodacre ◽  
Mary Godfrey ◽  
Janet Hanley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Inpatient Stay ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Delirium Assessment ◽  
Accuracy Study

Background Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 ‘A’s test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test – 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost. Methods Phase 1 – the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 – the 4AT’s diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted. Results Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0–14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0–6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067. Limitations Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness. Conclusions These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years. Future work Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

A comparison of the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care cohort with DSM–IV delirium

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roisin O'Sullivan ◽  
David Meagher ◽  
Maeve Leonard ◽  
Leiv Otto Watne ◽  
Roanna J Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Concordance Correlation ◽  
Delirium Assessment ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Common Items ◽  
Conversion Rules

AbstractObjective:Assessment of delirium is performed with a variety of instruments, making comparisons between studies difficult. A conversion rule between commonly used instruments would aid such comparisons. The present study aimed to compare the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care population and derive conversion rules between the two scales.Method:Both instruments were employed to assess 77 consecutive patients with DSM–IV delirium, and the measures were repeated at three-day intervals. Conversion rules were derived from the data at initial assessment and tested on subsequent data.Results:There was substantial overall agreement between the two scales [concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.70 (CI95 = 0.60–0.78)] and between most common items (weighted κ ranging from 0.63 to 0.86). Although the two scales overlap considerably, there were some subtle differences with only modest agreement between the attention (weighted κ = 0.42) and thought process (weighted κ = 0.61) items. The conversion rule from total MDAS score to DRS–R98 severity scores demonstrated an almost perfect level of agreement (r = 0.86, CCC = 0.86; CI95 = 0.79–0.91), similar to the conversion rule from DRS–R98 to MDAS.Significance of results:Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.

scholarly journals Real-world ethics in palliative care: A systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921632097427
Author(s):  
Guy Schofield ◽  
Mariana Dittborn ◽  
Richard Huxtable ◽  
Emer Brangan ◽  
Lucy Ellen Selman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Practice

Background: Ethical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners about day-to-day ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and adequately support staff. Aim: To synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which specialist palliative care practitioners encounter during clinical practice. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42018105365). Quality was dual-assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Tabulation, textural description, concept mapping and thematic synthesis were used to develop and present the narrative. Data sources: Seven databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched from inception to December 2019 without language limits. Eligible papers reported original research using inductive methods to describe practitioner-reported ethical challenges. Results: A total of 8074 records were screened. Thirteen studies from nine countries were included. Challenges were organised into six themes: application of ethical principles; delivering clinical care; working with families; engaging with institutional structures and values; navigating societal values and expectations; philosophy of palliative care. Challenges related to specific scenarios/contexts rather than the application of general ethical principles, and occurred at all levels (bedside, institution, society, policy). Conclusion: Palliative care practitioners encounter a broad range of contextual ethical challenges, many of which are not represented in palliative care ethics training resources, for example, navigating institutional policies, resource allocation and inter-professional conflict. Findings have implications for supporting ethical practice and training practitioners. The lack of low- and middle- income country data needs addressing.

scholarly journals Delirium screening practice in specialist palliative care units: a survey

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002251
Author(s):  
Rebecca Woodhouse ◽  
Najma Siddiqi ◽  
Jason W Boland ◽  
Imogen Featherstone ◽  
Miriam J Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Screening Practice ◽  
Palliative Care Units

ObjectivesDelirium is common and distressing in palliative care settings. This survey aims to describe current practice regarding delirium identification in specialist palliative care units (SPCU), such as inpatient hospices, in the UK.MethodsAn 18-item anonymous online survey was distributed by Hospice UK to their network of clinical leads (n=223), and to their research mailing list (n=228). The survey was also sent to the chair of the Hospice UK executive clinical leads forum for direct dissemination to forum representatives (n=20). Clinical leads and forum representatives were asked to distribute the survey to healthcare staff in their SPCUs.Results220 SPCU staff (48% nurses; 31% doctors; 10% healthcare assistants) completed the survey. Approximately half reported using clinical judgement alone to screen (97/204; 48%) and/or diagnose (124/220; 56%) delirium. Over a third used an assessment tool to screen for delirium (76/204; 37%). The majority (150/220; 68%) reported screening in response to clinical symptoms, while few reported routine on-admission (11/220; 5%) or daily-during-admission (12/220; 6%) screening. Most respondents had received some training on delirium (137/220; 62%). However, 130/220 (59%) said their SPCU did not have a training programme for delirium screening and only 79/220 (36%) reported that their SPCU had delirium clinical guidelines. The main barriers to routine screening included: lack of delirium training, lack of guidelines and complexity of patient’s conditions.ConclusionThere is variation in practice for delirium screening and diagnosis in SPCUs. Clinical guidelines for delirium, including consensus on which screening tools to use, are needed for this setting.

P-016: Evaluation of delirium screening tools in geriatric medical in-patients: A diagnostic test accuracy study

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. S36
Author(s):  
K. Hendry ◽  
T. Quinn ◽  
H. Miller ◽  
J. Burns ◽  
A.L. Cunnington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Accuracy Study

Cross-sectional examination of extrapyramidal side effects in a specialist palliative care inpatient unit

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-273
Author(s):  
Hannah O'Brien ◽  
Fiona Kiely ◽  
Aileen Barry ◽  
Sarah Meaney
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Inpatient Unit ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Extrapyramidal Side Effects ◽  
Inclusion Criteria

ObjectivesExtrapyramidal side effects (EPSEs) are serious potentially reversible side effects of antipsychotic and other medications that can cause distress for patients. A core principle of palliative care involves optimising quality of life. If side effects of medications are burdensome, it is imperative that we address this issue. The aim of the study was to determine and describe the burden of EPSEs in a specialist inpatient unit.MethodsConsenting patients who met inclusion criteria were assessed for EPSE with two validated screening tests, the Modified Simpson-Angus Scale (MSAS) and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS). Additional demographic data were collected including medications associated with EPSE, previous history of EPSE and known risk factors that may predispose a patient to EPSE.Results43% inpatients met inclusion criteria. At least 66% of patients were taking regular medications associated with EPSE. Of those, 25% were taking ≥2 medications associated with EPSE. The MSAS revealed 50% scored <3, 44% scored 3–5% and 6% scored 6–11. Seven patients had at least one ‘not rateable score’. In the BARS (sitting±standing), 94% scored 0/5 and 6% scored 1/5. 12.5% of participants were able to stand for 2 min to complete the BARS.Conclusions50% screened positive for EPSE. The complete BARS was unsuitable for most participants. The MSAS, while allowing a not rateable score, may underestimate EPSE. The frailty of an inpatient unit population impacts on applicability of screening tools and may therefore underestimate the burden of the problem in this population. Development of a population-specific screening tool warrants further investigation.

scholarly journals Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care—a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 5323-5333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waldemar Siemens ◽  
Christopher Boehlke ◽  
Michael I. Bennett ◽  
Klaus Offner ◽  
Gerhild Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Incident Pain

Abstract Purpose Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. Methods A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a “slight improvement.” Results Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: − 0.2, 95% confidence interval − 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. Conclusion TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least “slight pain relief” from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.

scholarly journals Interferon gamma release assays for Diagnostic Evaluation of Active tuberculosis (IDEA): test accuracy study and economic evaluation

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (23) ◽  
pp. 1-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yemisi Takwoingi ◽  
Hilary Whitworth ◽  
Melanie Rees-Roberts ◽  
Amarjit Badhan ◽  
Christopher Partlett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Interferon Gamma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Immunosuppressed Patient ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Interferon Gamma Release Assays ◽  
Accuracy Study

Background Interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) are blood tests recommended for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) infection. There is currently uncertainty about the role and clinical utility of IGRAs in the diagnostic workup of suspected active TB in routine NHS clinical practice. Objectives To compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of T-SPOT.TB ® (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK) and QuantiFERON® TB GOLD In-Tube (Cellestis, Carnegie, VIC, Australia) for diagnosis of suspected active TB and to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of second-generation IGRAs. Design Prospective within-patient comparative diagnostic accuracy study. Setting Secondary care. Participants Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting as inpatients or outpatients at 12 NHS hospital trusts in London, Slough, Oxford, Leicester and Birmingham with suspected active TB. Interventions The index tests [T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON GOLD In-Tube (QFT-GIT)] and new enzyme-linked immunospot assays utilising novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens (Rv3615c, Rv2654, Rv3879c and Rv3873) were verified against a composite reference standard applied by a panel of clinical experts blinded to IGRA results. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy. A decision tree model was developed to calculate the incremental costs and incremental health utilities [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of changing from current practice to using an IGRA as an initial rule-out test. Results A total of 363 patients had active TB (culture-confirmed and highly probable TB cases), 439 had no active TB and 43 had an indeterminate final diagnosis. Comparing T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT, the sensitivities [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 82.3% (95% CI 77.7% to 85.9%) and 67.3% (95% CI 62.1% to 72.2%), respectively, whereas specificities were 82.6% (95% CI 78.6% to 86.1%) and 80.4% (95% CI 76.1% to 84.1%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT (relative sensitivity 1.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.31; p < 0.001), but the specificities were similar (relative specificity 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.3). For both IGRAs the sensitivity was lower and the specificity was higher for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive than for HIV-negative patients. The most promising novel antigen was Rv3615c. The added value of Rv3615c to T-SPOT.TB was a 9% (95% CI 5% to 12%) relative increase in sensitivity at the expense of specificity, which had a relative decrease of 7% (95% CI 4% to 10%). The use of current IGRA tests for ruling out active TB is unlikely to be considered cost-effective if a QALY was valued at £20,000 or £30,000. For T-SPOT.TB, the probability of being cost-effective for a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY was 26% and 21%, when patients with indeterminate test results were excluded or included, respectively. In comparison, the QFT-GIT probabilities were 8% and 6%. Although the use of IGRAs is cost saving, the health detriment is large owing to delay in diagnosing active TB, leading to prolonged illness. There was substantial between-patient variation in the tests used in the diagnostic pathway. Limitations The recruitment target for the HIV co-infected population was not achieved. Conclusions Although T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT for the diagnosis of active TB, the tests are insufficiently sensitive for ruling out active TB in routine clinical practice in the UK. Novel assays offer some promise. Future work The novel assays require evaluation in distinct clinical settings and in immunosuppressed patient groups. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document