Does the Etiology, Phenomenology and Motor Subtype of Delirium Differ When It Occurs in Patients With An Underlying Dementia?: A Multi-Site, International Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the etiology, phenomenology and motor subtype of delirium in patients with and without an underlying dementia. METHODS: A combined dataset (n = 992) was collated from two databases of older adults (>65 years) from liaison psychiatry and palliative care populations in Ireland and India. Phenomenology and severity of delirium were analysed using the Delirium Symptom Rating Scale Revised (DRS-R98) and contributory etiologies for the delirium groups were ascertained using the Delirium Etiology Checklist (DEC). Delirium motor subtype was documented using the abbreviated version of the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS4). RESULTS: Delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) showed greater impairment in short term memory, long term memory and visuospatial ability than the delirium group but showed significantly less perceptual disturbance, temporal onset and fluctuation. Systemic infection, cerebrovascular and other Central nervous system etiology were associated with DSD while metabolic disturbance, organ insufficiency and intracranial neoplasm were associated with the delirium only group. CONCLUSION: The etiology and phenomenology of delirium differs when it occurs in the patient with an underlying dementia. We discuss the implications in terms of identification and management of this complex condition.

Comparison of novel tools with traditional cognitive tests in detecting delirium in elderly medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Efficient detection of delirium and comorbid delirium-dementia is a key diagnostic challenge. Development of new, efficient delirium-focused methods of cognitive assessment is a key challenge for improved detection of neurocognitive disorders in everyday clinical practice. AIM: To compare the accuracy of two novel bedside tests of attention, vigilance and visuospatial function with conventional bedside cognitive tests in identifying delirium in older hospitalized patients. METHODS: 180 consecutive elderly medical inpatients (mean age 79.6 ± 7.2; 51% female) referred to a psychiatry for later life consultation-liaison service with delirium, dementia, comorbid delirium-dementia and cognitively intact controls. Participants were assessed cross-sectionally with conventional bedside cognitive tests [WORLD, Months Backward test (MBT), Spatial span, Vigilance A and B, Clock Drawing test and Interlocking Pentagons test] and two novel cognitive tests [Lighthouse test, Letter and Shape Drawing test (LSD)-4]. RESULTS: Neurocognitive diagnoses were delirium (n = 44), dementia (n = 30), comorbid delirium-dementia (n = 60) and no neurocognitive disorder (n = 46). All conventional tests had sensitivity of > 70% for delirium, with best overall accuracy for the Vigilance-B (78.3%), Vigilance-A (77.8%) and MBT (76.7%) tests. The sustained attention component of the Lighthouse test was the most distinguishing of delirium (sensitivity 84.6%; overall accuracy 75.6%). The LSD-4 had sensitivity of 74.0% and overall accuracy 74.4% for delirium identification. Combining tests allowed for enhanced sensitivity (> 90%) and overall accuracy (≥ 75%) with the highest overall accuracy for the combination of MBT-Vigilance A and the combined Vigilance A and B tests (both 78.3%). When analyses were repeated for those with dementia, there were similar findings with the MBT-Vigilance A the most accurate overall combination (80.0%). Combining the Lighthouse-SA with the LSD-4, a fail in either test had sensitivity for delirium of 91.4 with overall accuracy of 74.4%. CONCLUSION: Bedside tests of attention, vigilance and visuospatial ability can help to distinguish neurocognitive disorders, including delirium, from other presentations. The Lighthouse test and the LSD-4 are novel tests with high accuracy for detecting delirium.

Delirium Phenotype by Age and Sex in a Pooled Data Set of Adult Patients.

The authors aimed to evaluate whether the clinical phenotype of delirium differs if dichotomized either by sex or age (cutoff age, 65 years old) in a pooled sample of 406 nondemented adult patients with delirium as defined by DSM-IV criteria. Delirium characteristics were measured with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98). DRS-R-98 items were subgrouped to represent subscores representing the three core domains of delirium (cognitive, higher-order thinking, and circadian), noncore accessory symptoms (psychotic and affective), and diagnostic characteristics (temporal onset, fluctuation, and physical disorder). The authors compared means of the DRS-R-98 subscores and medians of individual items. Exploratory factor analyses evaluated delirium characteristics for each subgroup for each of the four groups-male, female, nongeriatric, and geriatric-while taking into account active medical diagnoses. Males had higher scores on motor agitation and affective lability (behavioral), whereas females had a higher frequency of hypoactive delirium. Delirium had a two-factor structure that emerged in all four study groups, and all its core domains loaded (i.e., correlated together) onto some of these two factors and with circadian domain correlating with accessory symptoms. Although the influence of a variety of active diagnoses on delirium was small and complex, traumatic brain injury had a clear influence on cognitive domain and abrupt onset. Age had a mild influence over delirium characteristics for both males and females. In conclusion, the authors confirmed a two-factor structure for delirium phenomenology, regardless of age and sex, with few significant differences between etiological groups.

Attention, vigilance, and visuospatial function in hospitalized elderly medical patients: relationship to delirium syndromal status and motor subtype profile.

ABSTRACTBackground:The early and effective detection of neurocognitive disorders poses a key diagnostic challenge. We examined performance on common cognitive bedside tests according to differing delirium syndromal status and clinical (motor) subtypes in hospitalized elderly medical inpatients. METHODS: A battery of nine bedside cognitive tests was performed on elderly medical inpatients with DSM-IV delirium, subsyndromal delirium (SSD), and no delirium (ND). Patients with delirium were compared according to clinical (motor) subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients (mean age 79.14 ± 8.26) were assessed with full syndromal delirium (FSD: n = 110), SSD (n = 45), and ND (n = 43). Delirium status was not associated with differences in terms of gender distribution, age, or overall medication use. Dementia burden increased with greater delirium status. Overall, the ability to meaningfully engage with the tests varied from 59% for the Vigilance B test to 85% for Spatial Span Forward test and was lowest in patients with FSD, where engagement ranged from 32% for the Vigilance B test to 77% for the Spatial Span Forwards test. The ND group was distinguished from SSD group for the Months of the year backwards, Vigilance B, global VSP, Clock Drawing test, and Interlocking Pentagons test. The SSD group was distinguished from the FSD group by Vigilance A, Spatial Span Forward, and Spatial Span Backwards. Regarding differences among motor subtypes in terms of percentage engagement and performance, the No subtype group had higher ratings across all tests. Delirious patients with no subtype had significantly lower scores on the DRS-R98 than for the other three subtype categories. CONCLUSIONS: Simple bedside tests of attention, vigilance, and visuospatial ability are useful in distinguishing neurocognitive disorders, including SSD from other presentations.

Sleep-wake cycle disturbances in elderly acute general medical inpatients: Longitudinal relationship to delirium and dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep disturbances in elderly medical inpatients are common, but their relationship to delirium and dementia has not been studied. METHODS: Sleep and delirium status were assessed daily for a week in 145 consecutive newly admitted elderly acute general hospital patients using the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5, and Richards-Campbell Sleep Quality Scale measures. The longitudinal relationship between DRS-R98 and Richards-Campbell Sleep Quality Scale sleep scores and delirium, also with dementia as a covariate, was evaluated using generalized estimating equation logistic regression. RESULTS: The cohort was divided into delirium only, dementia only, comorbid delirium-dementia, and no-delirium/no-dementia subgroups. Mean age of total group was 80 ± 6.3, 48% were female, and 31 (21%) had dementia, 29 had delirium at admission (20%), and 27 (18.5%) experienced incident delirium. Mild sleep disturbance (DRS-R98 sleep item score ≥1) occurred for at least 1 day in all groups, whereas moderate sleep disturbance (score ≥2) occurred in significantly more of the prevalent delirium-only (81%; n = 17) cases than incident delirium-only (46%; n = 13) cases (P < .001). There were more cases with DRS-R98 sleep item scores ≥2 (P < .001) in the delirium-only group compared with the other subgroups. Severity of sleep-wake cycle disturbance over time was significantly associated with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 delirium status but not with age, sex, or dementia (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Observer-rated more severe sleep-wake cycle disturbances are highly associated with delirium irrespective of dementia status, consistent with being a core feature of delirium. Monitoring for altered sleep-wake cycle patterns may be a simple way to improve delirium detection.

Subsyndromal delirium compared with delirium, dementia, and subjects without delirium or dementia in elderly general hospital admissions and nursing home residents.

INTRODUCTION: Subsyndromal delirium (SSD) complicates diagnosis of delirium and dementia, although there is little research comparing their symptom profiles. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 400 elderly patients' admission to a general hospital or nursing home diagnosed with delirium, SSD, dementia, or no-delirium/no-dementia (NDND). Symptom profiles were assessed using the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98). RESULTS: Twenty percent patients had delirium, 19.3% had SSD, 29.8% had dementia-only, and 31% had NDND. Eighty-one percent of subsyndromal and 76% of delirium groups had comorbid dementia. DRS-R98 scores showed ascending severity from NDND < dementia-only < SSD < delirium. DRS-R98 scores for items evaluating the three core symptom domains (cognitive, higher-order thinking, and circadian) distinguished SSD from delirium and both from nondelirium groups. DRS-R98 profiles were essentially the same in delirium and SSD subgroups with or without dementia, although total scale scores were generally higher when in comorbid subgroups. DISCUSSION: SSD shared characteristic core domain symptoms with delirium, which distinguished each from nondelirium groups, although severity was intermediate in the subsyndromal group. Delirium core symptoms overshadowed the dementia phenotype when comorbid. Milder disturbances of delirium core domain symptoms are highly suggestive of SSD.

Variability of Delirium Motor Subtype Scale-Defined Delirium Motor Subtypes in Elderly Adults with Hip Fracture: A Longitudinal Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in motor subtype profile in individuals with delirium. DESIGN: Observational, longitudinal study; substudy of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Departments of surgery and orthopedics, Academic Medical Center and Tergooi Hospital, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly adults acutely admitted for hip fracture surgery who developed delirium according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, for 2 days or longer (n = 76, aged 86.4 ± 6.1, 68.4% female). MEASUREMENTS: Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS), Delirium Rating Scale R98 (DRS-R98), comorbidity, and function. RESULTS: Median delirium duration was 3 days (interquartile range 2.0 days). At first assessment, the hyperactive motor subtype was most common (44.7%), followed by hypoactive motor subtype (28.9%), mixed motor subtype (19.7%), and no motor subtype (6.6%). Participants with no motor subtype had lower DRS-R98 scores than those with the other subtypes (P < .001). The DMSS-defined motor subtype of 47 (61.8%) participants changed over time. Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cognitive impairment, age, sex, and delirium duration or severity were not associated with change in motor subtype. CONCLUSION: Motor subtype profile was variable in the majority of participants, although changes that occurred were often related to changes from or to no motor subtype, suggesting evolving or resolving delirium. Changes appeared not be associated with demographic or clinical characteristics, suggesting that evidence from cross-sectional studies of motor subtypes could be applied to many individuals with delirium. Further longitudinal studies should be performed to clarify the stability of motor subtypes in different clinical populations.

Attention, vigilance and visuospatial function in hospitalized elderly medical patients: Relationship to neurocognitive diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Efficient detection of neurocognitive disorders is a key diagnostic challenge. We explored how simple bedside tests of attention, vigilance and visuospatial function might assist in identifying delirium in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Performance on a battery of bedside cognitive tests was compared in elderly medical inpatients with DSM-IV delirium, dementia, comorbid delirium-dementia, and no neurocognitive disorder. RESULTS: 193 patients [mean age 79.9±7.3; 97 male] were assessed with delirium (n=45), dementia (n=33), comorbid delirium-dementia (n=65) and no neurocognitive disorder (NNCD) (n=50). The ability to meaningfully engage with the tests varied from 84% (Spatial Span Forwards) to 57% (Vigilance B test), and was especially problematic among the comorbid delirium-dementia group. The NNCD was distinguished from the delirium groups for most tests, and from the dementia group for the Vigilance B test and the Clock Drawing Test. The dementia group differed from delirium groups in respect of the Months Backward Test, Vigilance A and B tests, Global assessment of visuospatial ability and the Interlocking Pentagons Test. Overall, patients with delirium were best identified by three tests - the Months Backward Test, Vigilance A test and the Global Assessment of visuospatial function with failure to correctly complete any two of these predicting delirium status in 80% of cases. CONCLUSION: Simple bedside tests of attention, vigilance and visuospatial ability can help to distinguish neurocognitive disorders, including delirium, from other presentations. There is a need to develop more accurate methods specifically designed to assess patients with neurocognitive disorder who are unable to engage with conventional tests.

Patterns of psychotropic prescribing and polypharmacy in older hospitalized patients in Ireland: the influence of dementia on prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (NPS) are ubiquitous in dementia and are often treated pharmacologically. The objectives of this study were to describe the use of psychotropic, anti-cholinergic, and deliriogenic medications and to identify the prevalence of polypharmacy and psychotropic polypharmacy, among older hospitalized patients in Ireland, with and without dementia. METHODS: All older patients (≥ 70 years old) that had elective or emergency admissions to six Irish study hospitals were eligible for inclusion in a longitudinal observational study. Of 676 eligible patients, 598 patients were recruited and diagnosed as having dementia, or not, by medical experts. These 598 patients were assessed for delirium, medication use, co-morbidity, functional ability, and nutritional status. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of medication data on admission for 583/598 patients with complete medication data, and controlled for age, sex, and co-morbidity. RESULTS: Of 149 patients diagnosed with dementia, only 53 had a previous diagnosis. At hospital admission, 458/583 patients experienced polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications). People with dementia (PwD) were significantly more likely to be prescribed at least one psychotropic medication than patients without dementia (99/147 vs. 182/436; p < 0.001). PwD were also more likely to experience psychotropic polypharmacy (≥ two psychotropics) than those without dementia (54/147 vs. 61/436; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the prescribing patterns of anti-cholinergics (23/147 vs. 42/436; p = 0.18) or deliriogenics (79/147 vs. 235/436; p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy and psychotropic drug use is highly prevalent in older Irish hospitalized patients, especially in PwD. Hospital admission presents an ideal time for medication reviews in PwD.

Delirium diagnosis defined by cluster analysis of symptoms versus diagnosis by DSM and ICD criteria: diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Information on validity and reliability of delirium criteria is necessary for clinicians, researchers, and further developments of DSM or ICD. We compare four DSM and ICD delirium diagnostic criteria versions, which were developed by consensus of experts, with a phenomenology-based natural diagnosis delineated using cluster analysis of delirium features in a sample with a high prevalence of dementia. We also measured inter-rater reliability of each system when applied by two evaluators from distinct disciplines. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 200 consecutive patients admitted to a skilled nursing facility, independently assessed within 24-48 h after admission with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) and for DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, DSM-5, and ICD-10 criteria for delirium. Cluster analysis (CA) delineated natural delirium and nondelirium reference groups using DRS-R98 items and then diagnostic systems' performance were evaluated against the CA-defined groups using logistic regression and crosstabs for discriminant analysis (sensitivity, specificity, percentage of subjects correctly classified by each diagnostic system and their individual criteria, and performance for each system when excluding each individual criterion are reported). Kappa Index (K) was used to report inter-rater reliability for delirium diagnostic systems and their individual criteria. RESULTS: 117 (58.5 %) patients had preexisting dementia according to the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. CA delineated 49 delirium subjects and 151 nondelirium. Against these CA groups, delirium diagnosis accuracy was highest using DSM-III-R (87.5 %) followed closely by DSM-IV (86.0 %), ICD-10 (85.5 %) and DSM-5 (84.5 %). ICD-10 had the highest specificity (96.0 %) but lowest sensitivity (53.1 %). DSM-III-R had the best sensitivity (81.6 %) and the best sensitivity-specificity balance. DSM-5 had the highest inter-rater reliability (K =0.73) while DSM-III-R criteria were the least reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Using our CA-defined, phenomenologically-based delirium designations as the reference standard, we found performance discordance among four diagnostic systems when tested in subjects where comorbid dementia was prevalent. The most complex diagnostic systems have higher accuracy and the newer DSM-5 have higher reliability. Our novel phenomenological approach to designing a delirium reference standard may be preferred to guide revisions of diagnostic systems in the future.

The Impact of a Novel Tool for Comprehensive Assessment of Palliative Care (MPCAT) on Assessment Outcome at 6- and 12-Month Follow-Up.

CONTEXT: Assessment in palliative care settings should be focused, sensitive, specific, and effective to minimize discomfort to vulnerable and often highly morbid patients. This report describes the development of an admission assessment protocol for a Specialist Palliative Care Inpatient Unit and its implementation into clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and investigate the impact of the implementation of a Specialist Palliative Care admission assessment tool on documentation of key patient needs. METHODS: The outcome of a systematic literature review was used to develop an admission assessment protocol (the intervention) in a Specialist Palliative Care Inpatient Unit. Mixed methods were used to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation pre- and post-intervention to test the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: The documented evidence of pain assessment improved from a baseline rate of 71% to 100% post-intervention. This improvement was maintained 12 months post-introduction of the tool (P < 0.001). The documented evidence of screening for spiritual distress increased from a baseline rate of 23% to 70% at 6 months and to 82% at 12 months (P < 0.001). The number of referrals made in the first 24 hours after assessment increased post-intervention (physiotherapy, P = 0.001; occupational therapy, P = 0.001; social work, P = 0.005; pastoral care, P = 0.005); this was maintained at 12 months. Significantly, more clinicians (88%) agreed that palliative care domains were comprehensively assessed post-intervention in comparison with 59% pre-intervention (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Introducing the Milford Palliative Care Assessment Tool was associated with significant improvement in assessment of multiple important aspects of patient need.

Comparison of diagnostic classification systems for delirium with new research criteria that incorporate the three core domains.

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic classification systems do not incorporate phenomenological research findings about the three core symptom domains of delirium (Attentional/Cognitive, Circadian, Higher Level Thinking). We evaluated classification performances of novel Trzepacz, Meagher, and Franco research diagnostic criteria (TMF) that incorporate those domains and ICD-10, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-5. METHODS: Primary data analysis of 641 patients with mixed neuropsychiatric profiles. Delirium (n=429) and nondelirium (n=212) reference standard groups were identified using cluster analysis of symptoms assessed using the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-) are reported. RESULTS: TMF criteria had high sensitivity and specificity (87.4% and 89.2%), more balanced than DSM-III-R (100% and 31.6%), DSM-IV (97.7% and 74.1%), DSM-5 (97.7% and 72.6%), and ICD-10 (66.2% and 100%). PPV of DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 were <90.0%, while PPV for ICD-10 and TMF were >90%. ICD-10 had the lowest NPV (59.4%). TMF had the highest LR+ (8.06) and DSM-III-R the lowest LR- (0.0). Overall, values for DSM-IV and DSM-5 were similar, whereas for ICD-10 and DSM-III-R were inverse of each other. In the pre-existing cognitive impairment/dementia subsample (n=128), TMF retained its highest LR+ though specificity (58.3%) became less well balanced with sensitivity (87.9%), which still exceeded that of DSM. CONCLUSIONS: TMF research diagnostic criteria performed well, with more balanced sensitivity and specificity and the highest likelihood ratio for delirium identification. Reflecting the three core domains of delirium, TMF criteria may have advantages in biological research where delineation of this syndrome is important.

Comparison of cognitive and neuropsychiatric profiles in hospitalised elderly medical patients with delirium, dementia and comorbid delirium-dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Differentiation of delirium and dementia is a key diagnostic challenge but there has been limited study of features that distinguish these conditions. We examined neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological symptoms in elderly medical inpatients to identify features that distinguish major neurocognitive disorders. SETTING: University teaching hospital in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: 176 consecutive elderly medical inpatients (mean age 80.6 ± 7.0 years (range 60-96); 85 males (48%)) referred to a psychiatry for later life consultation-liaison service with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV delirium, dementia, comorbid delirium-dementia and cognitively intact controls. Participants were assessed cross-sectionally with comparison of scores (including individual items) for the Revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R98), Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-Q). RESULTS: The frequency of neurocognitive diagnoses was delirium (n=50), dementia (n=32), comorbid delirium-dementia (n=62) and cognitively intact patients (n=32). Both delirium and comorbid delirium-dementia groups scored higher than the dementia group for DRS-R98 and CTD total scores, but all three neurocognitively impaired groups scored similarly in respect of total NPI-Q scores. For individual DRS-R98 items, delirium groups were distinguished from dementia groups by a range of non-cognitive symptoms, but only for impaired attention of the cognitive items. For the CTD, attention (p=0.002) and vigilance (p=0.01) distinguished between delirium and dementia. No individual CTD item distinguished between comorbid delirium-dementia and delirium. For the NPI-Q, there were no differences between the three neurocognitively impaired groups for any individual item severity. CONCLUSIONS: The neurocognitive profile of delirium is similar with or without comorbid dementia and differs from dementia without delirium. Simple tests of attention and vigilance can help to distinguish between delirium and other presentations. The NPI-Q does not readily distinguish between neuropsychiatric disturbances in delirium versus dementia. Cases of suspected behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia should be carefully assessed for possible delirium.

Psychometric evaluation of the DMSS-4 in a cohort of elderly post-operative hip fracture patients with delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric syndrome with considerable heterogeneity in clinical profile. Rapid reliable identification of clinical subtypes can allow for more targeted research efforts. METHODS: We explored the concordance in attribution of motor subtypes between the Delirium Motor Subtyping Scale 4 (DMSS-4) and the original Delirium Motor Subtyping Scale (DMSS) (assessed cross-sectionally) and subtypes defined longitudinally using the Delirium Symptom Interview (DSI). RESULTS: We included 113 elderly patients developing DSM-IV delirium after hip-surgery [mean age 86.9 ± 6.6 years; range 65-102; 68.1% females; 25 (22.1%) had no previous history of cognitive impairment]. Concordance for the first measurement was high for both the DMSS-4 and original DMSS (k = 0.82), and overall for the DMSS-4 and DSI (k = 0.84). The DMSS-4 also demonstrated high internal consistency (McDonald's omega = 0.90). The DSI more often allocated an assessment to "no subtype" compared to the DMSS-4 and DMSS-11, which showed higher inclusion rates for motor subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The DMSS-4 provides a rapid method of identifying motor-defined clinical subtypes of delirium and appears to be a reliable alternative to the more detailed and time-consuming original DMSS and DSI methods of subtype attribution. The DMSS-4, so far translated into three languages, can be readily applied to further studies of causation, treatment and outcome in delirium.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R98).

Principal components analysis applied to the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 contributes to understanding the delirium construct. Using a multisite pooled international delirium database, the authors applied confirmatory factor analysis to Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 scores from 859 adult patients evaluated by delirium experts (delirium, N=516; nondelirium, N=343). Confirmatory factor analysis found all diagnostic features and core symptoms (cognitive, language, thought process, sleep-wake cycle, motor retardation), except motor agitation, loaded onto factor 1. Motor agitation loaded onto factor 2 with noncore symptoms (delusions, affective lability, and perceptual disturbances). Factor 1 loading supports delirium as a single construct, but when accompanied by psychosis, motor agitation's role may not be solely as a circadian activity indicator.

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.

Delirium diagnostic and classification challenges in palliative care: subsyndromal delirium, comorbid delirium-dementia, and psychomotor subtypes.

CONTEXT: Delirium often presents difficult diagnostic and classification challenges in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To review three major areas that create diagnostic and classification challenges in relation to delirium in palliative care: subsyndromal delirium (SSD), delirium in the context of comorbid dementia, and classification of psychomotor subtypes, and to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities in relation to these three areas of focus. METHODS: We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant PubMed literature searches as the knowledge synthesis strategy in this review. RESULTS: We identified six (SSD), 33 (dementia), and 44 (psychomotor subtypes) articles of relevance in relation to the focus of our review. Recent literature data highlight the frequency and impact of SSD, the relevance of comorbid dementia, and the propensity for a hypoactive presentation of delirium in the palliative population. The differential diagnoses to consider are wide and include pain, fatigue, mood disturbance, psychoactive medication effects, and other causes for altered consciousness. CONCLUSION: Challenges in the diagnosis and classification of delirium in people with advanced disease are compounded by the generalized disturbance of central nervous system function that occurs in the seriously ill, often with comorbid illness, including dementia. Further research is needed to delineate the pathophysiological and clinical associations of these presentations and thus inform therapeutic strategies. The expanding aged population and growing focus on dementia care in palliative care highlight the need to conduct this research.

End-of-life delirium: issues regarding recognition, optimal management, and the role of sedation in the dying phase.

CONTEXT: In end-of-life care, delirium is often not recognized and poses unique management challenges, especially in the case of refractory delirium in the terminal phase. OBJECTIVES: To review delirium in the terminal phase context, specifically in relation to recognition issues; the decision-making processes and management strategies regarding its reversibility; the potential refractoriness of delirium to symptomatic treatment; and the role of sedation in refractory delirium. METHODS: We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant electronic database literature searches (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) to inform this narrative review. RESULTS: The overall management strategy for delirium at the end of life is directed by the patient's prognosis in association with the patient's goals of care. As symptoms of delirium are often refractory in the terminal phase, especially in the case of agitated delirium, the judicious use of palliative sedation is frequently required. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence for the management of delirium in the terminal phase, including the role of antipsychotics and optimal sedation strategies. For the family and health-care staff, clear communication, education, and emotional support are vital components to assist with decision making and direct the treatment care plan. CONCLUSION: Further research on the effectiveness of delirium management strategies in the terminal phase for patients and their families is required. Further validation of assessment tools for diagnostic screening and severity measurement is needed in this patient population.

Practical assessment of delirium in palliative care.

CONTEXT: Delirium is a common, distressing neuropsychiatric complication for patients in palliative care settings, where the need to minimize burden yet accurately assess delirium is hugely challenging. OBJECTIVES: This review focused on the optimal clinical and research application of delirium assessment tools and methods in palliative care settings. METHODS: In addition to multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and other relevant stakeholders at an international meeting, we searched PubMed (1990-2012) and relevant reference lists to identify delirium assessment tools used either exclusively or partly in the context of palliative care. RESULTS: Of the 26 delirium scales identified, we selected six for in-depth review: three screening tools, two severity measures, and one research tool for neuropsychological assessment of delirium. These tools differed regarding intended use, ease of use, training requirements, psychometric properties, and validation in or suitability for palliative care populations. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, Single Question in Delirium, or Confusion Assessment Method, ideally with a brief attention test, can effectively screen for delirium. Favoring inclusivity, use of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria gives the best results for delirium diagnosis. The Revised Delirium Rating Scale and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale are the best available options for monitoring severity, and the Cognitive Test for Delirium provides detailed neuropsychological assessment for research purposes. CONCLUSION: Given the unique characteristics of patients in palliative care settings, further contextually sensitive studies of delirium assessment are required in this population.

An analytical framework for delirium research in palliative care settings: integrated epidemiologic, clinician-researcher, and knowledge user perspectives.

CONTEXT: Delirium often presents difficult management challenges in the context of goals of care in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to formulate an analytical framework for further research on delirium in palliative care settings, prioritize the associated research questions, discuss the inherent methodological challenges associated with relevant studies, and outline the next steps in a program of delirium research. METHODS: We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting, relevant literature searches, focused input of epidemiologic expertise, and a meeting participant and coauthor survey to formulate a conceptual research framework and prioritize research questions. RESULTS: Our proposed framework incorporates three main groups of research questions: the first was predominantly epidemiologic, such as delirium occurrence rates, risk factor evaluation, screening, and diagnosis; the second covers pragmatic management questions; and the third relates to the development of predictive models for delirium outcomes. Based on aggregated survey responses to each research question or domain, the combined modal ratings of "very" or "extremely" important confirmed their priority. CONCLUSION: Using an analytical framework to represent the full clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care settings, we identified multiple knowledge gaps in relation to the occurrence rates, assessment, management, and outcome prediction of delirium in this population. The knowledge synthesis generated from adequately powered, multicenter studies to answer the framework's research questions will inform decision making and policy development regarding delirium detection and management and thus help to achieve better outcomes for patients in palliative care settings.