↓ Skip to main content

Screening and detection of delirium in older ED patients: performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). A two-step tool

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Screening and detection of delirium in older ED patients: performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). A two-step tool
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11739-017-1781-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang Hasemann, Florian F. Grossmann, Rahel Stadler, Roland Bingisser, Dieter Breil, Martina Hafner, Reto W. Kressig, Christian H. Nickel

Abstract

Delirium is frequent in older Emergency Department (ED) patients, but detection rates for delirium in the ED are low. To aid in identifying delirium, we developed and implemented a two-step systematic delirium screening and assessment tool in our ED: the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). Components of the mCAM-ED include: (1) screening for inattention, the main feature of delirium, which was performed with the Months Backwards Test (MBT); (2) delirium assessment based on a structured interview with questions from the Mental Status Questionnaire by Kahn et al. and the Comprehension Test by Hart et al. The aims of our study are (1) to investigate the performance criteria of the mCAM-ED tool in a consecutive sample of older ED patients, (2) to evaluate the performance of the mCAM-ED in patients with and without dementia and (3) to test whether this tool is efficient in keeping evaluation time to a minimum and reducing screening and assessment burden on the patient. For this prospective validation study, we recruited a consecutive sample of ED patients aged 65 and older during an 11-day period in November 2015. Trained nurses assessed patients with the mCAM-ED. Results were compared to the reference standard [i.e. the geriatricians' delirium diagnosis based on the criteria of the Text Revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)]. Performance criteria were computed. We included 286 consecutive ED patients aged 65 and older. The median age was 80.02 (Q1 = 72.15; Q3 = 86.76), 58.7% of included patients were female, 14.3% had dementia. We found a delirium prevalence of 7.0%. In patients with dementia, specificity and positive likelihood ratio were lower. When compared to the reference standard, delirium assessment with the mCAM-ED has a 0.98 specificity and a 39.9 positive likelihood ratio. In 80.0% of all cases, the first step of the mCAM-ED, i.e. screening for inattention with the MBT, took less than 30 s. On average, the complete mCAM-ED assessment required 3.2 (SD 2.0), 5.6 (SD 3.2), and 6.2 (SD 2.3) minutes in cognitively unimpaired patients, patients with dementia and patients with dementia or delirium, respectively. The mCAM-ED is able to efficiently rule out delirium as well as confirm the diagnosis of delirium in elderly patients with and without dementia and applies minimal screening and assessment burden on the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Other 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,392,320
of 23,206,358 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#104
of 964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,691
of 442,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,206,358 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them