Search

Objective: Delirium is a serious and common complication among older hospitalized patients and is a predictor of many adverse outcomes. However, up to 72% of delirium incidents are unrecognized or misdiagnosed. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of instruments for the detection of delirium in older hospitalized patients., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted. The inclusion criteria were a mean or median age of 65+ years, the use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases-10 as a reference standard, and publication in English. All included studies underwent a quality assessment (QUADAS-2)., Results: Forty-three of the 3.790 identified studies were relevant to the review, describing 28 instruments. Quality assessment resulted in 37 studies with a positive quality assessment, describing 23 instruments. Five instruments (Delirium Observation Scale (DOS), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), CAM-Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98) were described in three or more methodologically sound studies. The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) and Nu-DESC are observational instruments with good psychometric properties, but the Nu-DESC is shorter and has been validated in more languages. The CAM, CAM-ICU, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) are instruments with both observational and interactive components. The CAM is the most widely studied and demonstrates the best psychometric properties., Conclusion: Timely detection of delirium might reduce the negative outcomes of delirium in the long term. The Nu-DESC and CAM appear to be the most adequate instruments for detecting delirium. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

As nurses in hospitals are confronted with increasing numbers of older patients, their geriatric nursing skills and knowledge must be integrated into daily clinical practice. Early risk identification via screening tools may help improve geriatric care. To reduce the assessment burden of nurses, the Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalized Patients (MFST-HP) was developed. The aim of the current study was to explore aspects of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the MFST-HP. Intrarater reliability was assessed by measuring patients two times within 24 hours. Interrater reliability was assessed by having patients screened by two different nurses. Construct validity was studied by the associations between the MFST-HP scores and age and comorbidities. Intraclass correlation coefficients for both intra- and interrater reliability were good (>0.93). Older patients and those with more comorbidity showed higher scores on the MFST-HP compared to younger patients and those with less comorbidity. The MFST-HP shows promise as a reliable, valid, and feasible screening tool for frailty among hospitalized older adults. [Res Gerontol Nurs. 2016; 9(5):243-251.]., (Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background: The objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility., Methods: Studies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)., Results: From the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity., Conclusions: Many screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items.