Nursing Home Assessment of Cognitive Impairment: Development and Testing of a Brief Instrument of Mental Status

OBJECTIVES: To test the accuracy of a brief cognitive assessment of nursing home (NH) residents and to determine whether facility nurses can reliably perform this assessment. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional, independent cognitive screening tests with NH residents. SETTING: Six Department of Veteran Affairs...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) 2008-11, Vol.56 (11), p.2069-2075
Hauptverfasser: Chodosh, Joshua, Edelen, Maria Orlando, Buchanan, Joan L., Yosef, Julia Ann, Ouslander, Joseph G., Berlowitz, Dan R., Streim, Joel E., Saliba, Debra
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVES: To test the accuracy of a brief cognitive assessment of nursing home (NH) residents and to determine whether facility nurses can reliably perform this assessment. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional, independent cognitive screening tests with NH residents. SETTING: Six Department of Veteran Affairs nursing facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred seventy‐four residents from six regionally distributed Veteran Affairs NHs. MEASUREMENTS: Three cognitive assessment instruments: the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS), created for this study; the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS), and the Modified Mini‐Mental State Examination (3MS) as the criterion standard. The 15‐point BIMS tests memory and orientation and includes free and cued recall items. Research assistants administered the 3MS and BIMS to all subjects. Facility nurses administered the same BIMS to a subsample. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy‐four of 417 (89.7%) residents approached completed the 3MS and research assistant–administered BIMS (BIMS‐R); 212 residents also received a facility nurse–administered BIMS (BIMS‐N). The BIMS‐R was more highly correlated with the 3MS than was the CPS (Pearson correlation coefficient (r)=0.79 vs 0.62; P
ISSN:0002-8614
1532-5415
DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01944.x