Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU)
It is recommended that critically ill patients undergo routine delirium monitoring with a valid and reliable tool such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). However, the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the CAM-ICU has not been investigated. Here,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMC psychiatry 2018-04, Vol.18 (1), p.91-91, Article 91 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | It is recommended that critically ill patients undergo routine delirium monitoring with a valid and reliable tool such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). However, the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the CAM-ICU has not been investigated. Here, we test the validity and reliability of the Arabic CAM-ICU.
We conducted a psychometric study at ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital in Saudi Arabia. We recruited consecutive adult Arabic-speaking patients, who had stayed in the ICU for at least 24 hours, and had a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≥ - 2 at examination. Two well-trained examiners (ICU nurse and intensivist) independently assessed delirium in eligible patients with the Arabic CAM-ICU. Evaluations by the two examiners were compared with psychiatrist blind clinical assessment of delirium according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and gender.
We included 108 patients (mean age: 62.6 ± 17.6; male: 51.9%), of whom 37% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Delirium was diagnosed in 63% of enrolled patients as per the psychiatrist clinical assessment. The Arabic CAM-ICU sensitivity was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-0.84) and 56% (95%CI = 0.44-0.68) for the ICU nurse and intensivist, respectively. Specificity was 98% (95%CI = 0.93-1.0) and 92% (95%CI = 0.84-1.0), respectively. Sensitivity was greater for mechanically-ventilated patients, women, and those aged ≥65 years. Specificity was greater for those aged |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1471-244X 1471-244X |
DOI: | 10.1186/s12888-018-1676-0 |