Brief ReportPerformance of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale in identifying delirium in older ED patients
Introduction
Delirium is frequent in older emergency department (ED) patients and associated with adverse outcomes such as mortality, prolonged hospitalizations, as well as persistent cognitive and functional decline [1], [2]. However, in the ED, detection of delirium is often difficult, especially if delirium is superimposed on dementia [3].
Several two-step bedside tests have been developed to aid ED clinicians in systematically screening for and assessing delirium. These are, in essence, adaptions of the original Confusion Assessment Method [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. As inattention is one of the cardinal symptoms of delirium, a first step is screening for inattention. The application of such tools is feasible, but is dependent on patients' ability to cooperate and communicate [6]. Therefore, a simple alternative is observing patients' level of consciousness because an altered level of consciousness is another main feature of delirium. Level of consciousness can readily be evaluated with the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) [9]. In a trial investigating several screening tools in the ED [5], the RASS performed well: a RASS score other than zero revealed a sensitivity of 0.840 (95% CI 0.738–0.942), specificity of 0.876 (95% CI 0.842–0.911), positive likelihood ratio of 6.8 (95% CI 5.0–9.2), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.3) [10]. However, analyses in that study were conducted in a convenience sample without stratification into patients with and without dementia. We therefore aimed to investigate the performance of the RASS in identifying delirium in a consecutive sample of older ED patients both with and without dementia.
Section snippets
Methods
This was a pre-planned subanalysis of data collected in a larger prospective trial in which we tested the performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the ED (mCAM-ED) [6] (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02782143). The study was approved by the local ethics committee (EKNZ-2015-123). We included a consecutive sample of ED patients aged 65 and older presenting to our institution's ED during an 11 day period in November 2015. Approximately 50,000 adult patients from all medical specialties
Results
During the study period, 416 patients aged 65 and older presented to our ED (Fig. 1) of which 285 were included in the analysis. The median age was 79.9 years (interquartile range 72.4; 86.7) and 58.9% were female. Most patients were assigned Emergency Severity Index 3 (56.7%) and 2 (26.8%). Cross tabulation of the mRASS by delirium is displayed in Table 1.
The performance of the mRASS to diagnose delirium is shown in Table 2. An mRASS other than 0 had a sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.48; 0.85)
Main discussion
The RASS is different from other delirium screening tools in that it can be administered by simply observing patients. This makes it attractive for use in a busy ED setting [7], [8]. However, there are only few other studies on the performance of the RASS to identify delirium [10], [12], [13], [14], of which only two were performed in the ED setting [10], [13]. In an explanatory study on hip fracture patients the RASS had a sensitivity of 0.80, and specificity 0.79 for delirium [14]. In another
Acknowledgements
We thank the research assistants who performed the mRASS and the attending geriatricians serving as a reference standard and Duncan Shabb, MD, for helpful discussions.
References (15)
- et al.
Diagnosing delirium in older emergency department patients: validity and reliability of the delirium triage screen and the brief confusion assessment method
Ann Emerg Med
(2013) - et al.
Detecting delirium superimposed on dementia: evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the Richmond agitation and sedation Scale
J Am Med Dir Assoc
(2016) - et al.
Abnormal level of arousal as a predictor of delirium and inattention: an exploratory study
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry
(2013) - et al.
Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia: a meta-analysis
JAMA
(2010) - et al.
Delirium risk prediction, healthcare use and mortality of elderly adults in the emergency department
J Am Geriatr Soc
(2014) - et al.
Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review
J Am Geriatr Soc
(2012) - et al.
Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium
Ann Intern Med
(1990)
Cited by (17)
ENA Clinical Practice Guideline Synopsis: Screening Older Adults for Cognitive Impairment
2024, Journal of Emergency NursingA commentary on "Risk factors for postoperative delirium: An umbrella review of systematic reviews"(Int J Surg 2021; 93:106063)
2022, International Journal of SurgeryDiagnosing delirium in patients with dementia, a great challenge
2019, Medicina ClinicaMeningitis presenting as acute psychosis in the ED: Speciality collaboration and rethinking the generalizability to real-world practice
2018, American Journal of Emergency MedicineHow can we identify patients with delirium in the emergency department?: A review of available screening and diagnostic tools
2017, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Grossmann et al. also performed a relevant subclass analysis, allocating subjects to either a group with or without dementia [11]. The aforementioned parameters in patients with dementia were 0.55, 0.83, 0.55 and 0.83, respectively, leading the authors to conclude that the mRASS was not sensitive enough to identify delirium in the ED setting especially in patients with dementia [11]. However, the same parameters were 0.89, 0.94, 0.38 and 1.00, respectively, in patients without dementia [11], a finding which seems sufficient to integrate mRASS into routine ED practice for patients with no previous history of dementia.