Lessons learned from hip fracture registries - From the Scottish perspective to global practice.

Hip fracture is the most common serious orthopaedic injury affecting older people. In Scotland, 7000 patients sustain a hip fracture each year, and this is projected to rise to 10,300 a year by 2029. In this narrative review, we describe the origin and evolution of the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit, including key elements which have improved hip fracture care and outcomes within Scotland, and the current state of play of hip fracture registries around the world. We go on to discuss future directions for data driven improvements in hip fracture care, including international standardised data collection and a global minimum common dataset for hip fracture registries.

Months backward test: A review of its use in clinical studies.

AIM: To review the use of the Months Backwards Test (MBT) in clinical and research contexts. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reports relating to the MBT based upon a search of PsychINFO and MEDLINE between January 1980 and December 2014. Only reports that specifically described findings pertaining to the MBT were included. Findings were considered in terms of rating procedures, testing performance, psychometric properties, neuropsychological studies and use in clinical populations. RESULTS: We identified 22 data reports. The MBT is administered and rated in a variety of ways with very little consistency across studies. It has been used to assess various cognitive functions including focused and sustained attention as well as central processing speed. Performance can be assessed in terms of the ability to accurately complete the test without errors ("MB accuracy"), and time taken to complete the test ("MB duration"). Completion time in cognitively intact subjects is usually < 20 s with upper limits of 60-90 s typically applied in studies. The majority of cognitively intact adults can complete the test without error such that any errors of omission are strongly suggestive of cognitive dysfunction. Coverage of clinical populations, including those with significant cognitive difficulties is high with the majority of subjects able to engage with MBT procedures. Performance correlates highly with other cognitive tests, especially of attention, including the digit span backwards, trailmaking test B, serial threes and sevens, tests of simple and complex choice reaction time, delayed story recall and standardized list learning measures. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability are high (both > 0.90). Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies comparing the months forward test and MBT indicate greater involvement of more complex networks (bilateral middle and inferior frontal gyri, the posterior parietal cortex and the left anterior cingulate gyrus) for backwards cognitive processing. The MBT has been usefully applied to the study of a variety of clinical presentations, for both cognitive and functional assessment. In addition to the assessment of major neuropsychiatric conditions such as delirium, dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment, the MBT has been used in the assessment of concussion, profiling of neurocognitive impairments in organic brain disorders and Parkinson's disease, prediction of delirium risk in surgical patients and medication compliance in diabetes. The reported sensitivity for acute neurocognitive disturbance/delirium in hospitalised patients is estimated at 83%-93%. Repeated testing can be used to identify deteriorating cognitive function over time. CONCLUSION: The MBT is a simple, versatile tool that is sensitive to significant cognitive impairment. Performance can be assessed according to accuracy and speed of performance. However, greater consistency in administration and rating is needed. We suggest two approaches to assessing performance - a simple (pass/fail) method as well as a ten point scale for rating test performance (467).

Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. METHODS: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. 'Strict' and 'relaxed' DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. RESULTS: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more 'relaxed' approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.