The Delirium Interview as a new reference standard in studies on delirium assessment tools

Background The reference standard in studies on delirium assessment tools is usually based on the clinical judgment of only one delirium expert and may be concise, unstandardized, or not specified at all. This multicenter study investigated the performance of the Delirium Interview, a new reference...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) 2023-06, Vol.71 (6), p.1923-1930
Hauptverfasser: Ditzel, Fienke L., Slooter, Arjen J. C., Boogaard, Mark, Boonstra, Michel, Nesselrooij, Timotheus A., Kromkamp, Marjan, Pop‐Purceleanu, Monica, Rood, Paul J. T., Osse, Robert Jan, Chan, Carol K., MacLullich, Alasdair M. J., Tieges, Zoë, Neufeld, Karin J., Hut, Suzanne C. A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The reference standard in studies on delirium assessment tools is usually based on the clinical judgment of only one delirium expert and may be concise, unstandardized, or not specified at all. This multicenter study investigated the performance of the Delirium Interview, a new reference standard for studies on delirium assessment tools allowing classification of delirium based on written reports. Methods We tested the diagnostic accuracy of our standardized Delirium Interview by comparing delirium assessments of the reported results with live assessments. Our reference, the live assessment, was performed by two delirium experts and one well‐trained researcher who registered the results. Their delirium assessment was compared to the majority vote of three other independent delirium experts who judged the rapportage of the Delirium Interview. Our total pool consisted of 13 delirium experts with an average of 13 ± 8 years of experience. Results We included 98 patients (62% male, mean age 69 ± 12 years), of whom 56 (57%) intensive care units (ICUs) patients, 22 (39%) patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) 
ISSN:0002-8614
1532-5415
DOI:10.1111/jgs.18263