Validation of caregiver‐centered delirium detection tools: a systematic review

• Autores: Brianna Rosgen, Karla Krewulak, Danielle Demiantschuk, E. Wesley Ely, Judy E. Davidson, Henry T. Stelfox, Kirsten M. Fiest
• Localización: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, ISSN 0002-8614, Vol. 66, Nº. 6, 2018, págs. 1218-1225
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto Completo Ejemplar
• Resumen

  • Objectives To summarize the validity of caregiver‐centered delirium detection tools in hospitalized adults and assess associated patient and caregiver outcomes.

    Design Systematic review.

    Setting We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to May 15, 2017.

    Participants Hospitalized adults.

    Intervention Caregiver‐centered delirium detection tools.

    Measurements We drafted a protocol from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers independently completed abstract and full‐text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. We summarized findings using descriptive statistics including mean, median, standard deviation, range, frequencies (percentages), and Cohen's kappa. Studies that reported on the validity of caregiver‐centered delirium detection tools or associated patient and caregiver outcomes and were cohort or cross‐sectional in design were included.

    Results We reviewed 6,056 titles and abstracts, included 6 articles, and identified 6 caregiver‐centered tools. All tools were designed to be administered in several minutes or less and had 11 items or fewer. Three tools were caregiver administered (completed independently by caregivers): Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM‐CAM), Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium (I‐AGeD), and Sour Seven. Three tools were caregiver informed (administered by a healthcare professional using caregiver input): Single Question in Delirium (SQiD), Single Screening Question Delirium (SSQ–Delirium), and Stressful Caregiving Response to Experiences of Dying. Caregiver‐administered tools had better psychometric properties (FAM‐CAM sensitivity 75%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=35–95%, specificity 91%, 95% CI=74–97%; Sour Seven positive predictive value 89.5%, negative predictive value 90%) than caregiver‐informed tools (SQiD: sensitivity 80%, 95% CI=28.4–99.5%; specificity 71%, 95% CI=41.9–91.6%; SSQ‐Delirium sensitivity 79.6%, specificity 56.1%).

    Conclusion Delirium detection is essential for appropriate delirium management. Caregiver‐centered delirium detection tools show promise in improving delirium detection and associated patient and caregiver outcomes. Comparative studies using larger sample sizes and multiple centers are required to determine validity and reliability characteristics.