Harmonization of cognitive screening tools for dementia across diverse samples: A simulation study.

Introduction: Research focusing on cognitive aging and dementia is a global endeavor. However, cross-national differences in cognition are embedded in other sociocultural differences, precluding direct comparisons of test scores. Such comparisons can be facilitated by co-calibration using item response theory (IRT). The goal of this study was to explore, using simulation, the necessary conditions for accurate harmonization of cognitive data. Method: Neuropsychological test scores from the US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS) were subjected to IRT analysis to estimate item parameters and sample means and standard deviations. These estimates were used to generate simulated item response patterns under 10 scenarios that adjusted the quality and quantity of linking items used in harmonization. IRT-derived factor scores were compared to the known population values to assess bias, efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of the harmonized data. Results: The current configuration of HRS and MHAS data was not suitable for harmonization, as poor linking item quality led to large bias in both cohorts. Scenarios with more numerous and higher quality linking items led to less biased and more accurate harmonization. Discussion: Linking items must possess low measurement error across the range of latent ability for co-calibration to be successful. HIGHLIGHTS: We developed a statistical simulation platform to evaluate the degree to which cross-sample harmonization accuracy varies as a function of the quality and quantity of linking items.Two large studies of aging-one in Mexico and one in the United States-use three common items to measure cognition.These three common items have weak correspondence with the ability being measured and are all low in difficulty.Harmonized scores derived from the three common linking items will provide biased and inaccurate estimates of cognitive ability.Harmonization accuracy is greatest when linking items vary in difficulty and are strongly related to the ability being measured.

Delirium Item Bank: Utilization to Evaluate and Create Delirium Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: The large number of heterogeneous instruments in active use for identification of delirium prevents direct comparison of studies and the ability to combine results. In a recent systematic review we performed, we recommended four commonly used and well-validated instruments and subsequently harmonized them using advanced psychometric methods to develop an item bank, the Delirium Item Bank (DEL-IB). The goal of the present study was to find optimal cut-points on four existing instruments and to demonstrate use of the DEL-IB to create new instruments. METHODS: We used a secondary analysis and simulation study based on data from three previous studies of hospitalized older adults (age 65+ years) in the USA, Ireland, and Belgium. The combined dataset included 600 participants, contributing 1,623 delirium assessments, and an overall incidence of delirium of about 22%. The measurements included the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition diagnostic criteria for delirium, Confusion Assessment Method (long form and short form), Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (total and severity scores), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). RESULTS: We identified different cut-points for each existing instrument to optimize sensitivity or specificity, and compared instrument performance at each cut-point to the author-defined cut-point. For instance, the cut-point on the MDAS that maximizes both sensitivity and specificity was at a sum score of 6 yielding 89% sensitivity and 79% specificity. We then created four new example instruments (two short forms and two long forms) and evaluated their performance characteristics. In the first example short form instrument, the cut-point that maximizes sensitivity and specificity was at a sum score of 3 yielding 90% sensitivity, 81% specificity, 30% positive predictive value, and 99% negative predictive value. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: We used the DEL-IB to better understand the psychometric performance of widely used delirium identification instruments and scorings, and also demonstrated its use to create new instruments. Ultimately, we hope that the DEL-IB might be used to create optimized delirium identification instruments and to spur the development of a unified approach to identify delirium.

Psychometric Properties of a Delirium Severity Score for Older Adults and Association With Hospital and Posthospital Outcomes.

Importance: The ability to rate delirium severity is key to providing optimal care for older adults, and such ratings would allow clinicians to target patients with severe delirium and monitor response to treatment, recovery time, and prognosis; assess nursing burden and staffing needs; and, ultimately, provide more appropriate patient-centered care. Current delirium severity measures have been limited in their content, gradations, and measurement characteristics. Objective: To examine the internal consistency, reliability, and validity for clinical outcomes of the DEL-S delirium severity score, a measure of delirium severity that was developed using advanced psychometric approaches, analogous to those of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System initiative. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a large academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Adults aged 70 years or older who were admitted or transferred to medical or surgical services as either emergency or elective admissions were enrolled between October 20, 2015, and March 15, 2017, and were monitored for 1 year. Data analysis was performed from June 2020 to August 2021. Exposures: Delirium severity, measured by scores on the delirium severity score short-form (SF; 6 items, scored 0-13, with higher scores indicating more severe delirium) and long-form (LF; 17 items, scored 0-21), considered continuously and grouped into 5 categories. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were in-hospital outcomes, including length of stay and hospital costs, and posthospital (30, 90, and 365 days) outcomes, including death, health care costs, and rehospitalization. Results: The 352 participants had a median (IQR) age of 79.7 (74.6-85.5) years, 204 (58.0%) were women, and they were highly educated (median [IQR] duration of education, 14 [7-20] years). Patients in the highest delirium severity score SF group (scores 6-9) had a longer length of stay (13.3 vs 6.9 days; P for trend < .001), greater in-hospital costs ($57 700 vs $34 200), greater cumulative health care costs ($168 700 vs $106 500; P for trend = .01), and increased mortality at 1 year (50% vs 17%; P for trend = .02) compared with patients in the lowest delirium severity score SF group (score 0). Similar trends and significant findings were demonstrated for the delirium severity score LF. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the delirium severity score provides an approach for measuring delirium severity that is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in a direct exposure-response association and that the delirium severity score may help advance patient-centered care for delirium.

Harmonization of Four Delirium Instruments: Creating Crosswalks and the Delirium Item-Bank (DEL-IB).

OBJECTIVES: Over 30 instruments are in current, active use for delirium identification. In a recent systematic review, we recommended 4 commonly used and well-validated instruments for clinical and research use. The goal of this study is to harmonize the four instruments on the same metric using modern methods in psychometrics. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis from 3 studies, and a simulation study based on the observed data. SETTING: Hospitalized (non-ICU) adults over 65 years old in the United States, Ireland, and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: The total sample comprised 600 participants, contributing 1,623 assessments. MEASUREMENTS: Confusion Assessment Method (long-form and short-form), Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) (total and severity scores), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. RESULTS: Using item response theory, we linked scores across instruments, placing all four instruments and their separate scorings on the same metric (the propensity to delirium). Kappa statistics comparing agreement in delirium identification among the instruments ranged from 0.37 to 0.75, with the highest agreement between the DRS-R-98 total score and MDAS. After linking scores, we created a harmonized item bank, called the Delirium Item Bank (DEL-IB), consisting of 50 items. The DEL-IB allowed us to create six crosswalks, to allow scores to be translated across instruments. CONCLUSIONS: With our results, individual instrument scores can be directly compared to aid in clinical decision-making, and quantitatively combined in meta-analyses.

Detecting Delirium: A Systematic Review of Identification Instruments for Non-ICU Settings.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Delirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research. DESIGN: We conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments. MEASUREMENTS: Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. RESULTS: Of 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. CONCLUSION: Four commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.

Delirium in Older Patients With COVID-19 Presenting to the Emergency Department.

Importance: Delirium is common among older emergency department (ED) patients, is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and frequently goes unrecognized. Anecdotal evidence has described atypical presentations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in older adults; however, the frequency of and outcomes associated with delirium in older ED patients with COVID-19 infection have not been well described. Objective: To determine how frequently older adults with COVID-19 present to the ED with delirium and their associated hospital outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study was conducted at 7 sites in the US. Participants included consecutive older adults with COVID-19 presenting to the ED on or after March 13, 2020. Exposure: COVID-19 was diagnosed by positive nasal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (99% of cases) or classic radiological findings (1% of cases). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delirium as identified from the medical record according to a validated record review approach. Results: A total of 817 older patients with COVID-19 were included, of whom 386 (47%) were male, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean (SD) age of patients was 77.7 (8.2) years. Of included patients, 226 (28%) had delirium at presentation, and delirium was the sixth most common of all presenting symptoms and signs. Among the patients with delirium, 37 (16%) had delirium as a primary symptom and 84 (37%) had no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as fever or shortness of breath. Factors associated with delirium were age older than 75 years (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.17-1.95), living in a nursing home or assisted living (aRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.55), prior use of psychoactive medication (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81), vision impairment (aRR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.54), hearing impairment (aRR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.78-1.55), stroke (aRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.15-1.88), and Parkinson disease (aRR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.30-2.58). Delirium was associated with intensive care unit stay (aRR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15) and death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.55). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 817 older adults with COVID-19 presenting to US emergency departments, delirium was common and often was seen without other typical symptoms or signs. In addition, delirium was associated with poor hospital outcomes and death. These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation.

New Delirium Severity Indicators: Generation and Internal Validation in the Better Assessment of Illness (BASIL) Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and preventable geriatric syndrome. Moving beyond the binary classification of delirium present/absent, delirium severity represents a potentially important outcome for evaluating preventive and treatment interventions and tracking the course of patients. Although several delirium severity assessment tools currently exist, most have been developed in the absence of advanced measurement methodology and have not been evaluated with rigorous validation studies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report our development of new delirium severity items and the results of item reduction and selection activities guided by psychometric analysis of data derived from a field study. METHODS: Building on our literature review of delirium instruments and expert panel process to identify domains of delirium severity, we adapted items from existing delirium severity instruments and generated new items. We then fielded these items among a sample of 352 older hospitalized patients. RESULTS: We used an expert panel process and psychometric data analysis techniques to narrow a set of 303 potential items to 17 items for use in a new delirium severity instrument. The 17-item set demonstrated good internal validity and favorable psychometric characteristics relative to comparator instruments, including the Confusion Assessment Method - Severity (CAM-S) score, the Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98, and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. CONCLUSION: We more fully conceptualized delirium severity and identified characteristics of an ideal delirium severity instrument. These characteristics include an instrument that is relatively quick to administer, is easy to use by raters with minimal training, and provides a severity rating with good content validity, high internal consistency reliability, and broad domain coverage across delirium symptoms. We anticipate these characteristics to be represented in the subsequent development of our final delirium severity instrument.

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives: To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review: This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings: Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Harmonization of delirium severity instruments: a comparison of the DRS-R-98, MDAS, and CAM-S using item response theory.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the level of agreement of three commonly used delirium instruments: the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), and Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S). METHODS: We used data from a prospective clinical research study, in which a team of trained lay interviewers administered each instrument along with supporting interview and cognitive assessments in the same group of patients daily while in the hospital (N = 352). We used item response theory methods to co-calibrate the instruments. RESULTS: The latent traits underlying the three measures, capturing the severity of a delirium assessment, had a high degree of correlation (r's > .82). Unidimensional factor models fit well, facilitating co-calibration of the instruments. Across instruments, the less intense symptoms were generally items reflecting cognitive impairment. Although the intensity of delirium severity for most in the sample was relatively low, many of the item thresholds for the delirium severity scales are high (i.e., in the more severe range of the latent ability distribution). This indicates that even people with severe delirium may have a low probability of endorsing the highest severity categories for many items. Co-calibration enabled us to derive crosswalks to map delirium severity scores among the delirium instruments. CONCLUSION: These delirium instruments measure the same underlying construct of delirium severity. Relative locations of items may inform design of refined measurement instruments. Mapping of overall delirium severity scores across the delirium severity instruments enabled us to derive crosswalks, which allow scores to be translated across instruments, facilitating comparison and combination of delirium studies for integrative analysis.

Elevated serum glucose levels and survival after acute heart failure: a population-based perspective.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available about the characteristics, treatment and survival in patients without diabetes mellitus (DM), previously diagnosed DM and patients with hyperglycaemia who present with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Our objectives were to examine differences in these endpoints in patients hospitalized with ADHF. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with ADHF during 1995, 2000, 2002 and 2004 comprised the study population. RESULTS: A total of 5428 non-diabetic patients were hospitalized with ADHF, 3807 with diagnosed DM and 513 with admission hyperglycaemia. Patients with admission hyperglycaemia experienced the highest in-hospital death rates (9.9%) compared to those with diagnosed DM (6.5%) and non-diabetics (7.5%). Patients with diagnosed DM had the greatest risk of dying after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with elevated blood glucose levels at hospital admission are more likely to die acutely. After resolution of the acute illness, patients with previously diagnosed DM need careful monitoring and enhanced treatment.

Project ReEngineered Discharge (RED) lowers hospital readmissions of patients discharged from a skilled nursing facility.

CONTEXT: Patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) have a high risk for rehospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this project was to implement Project RED in an SNF to increase patient preparedness for care transitions and lower rehospitalization rates in the 30 days after discharge from the SNF facility. DESIGN: Intervention study with historical control; phone survey 30 days after discharge from the SNF for data collection. SETTING: The study was conducted in an SNF admitting patients from acute care hospitals in Boston, MA. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of patients in the SNF before (n = 524) and after initiation (n = 100) of the intervention. Participants had an average age of 80 (SD = 10), 67% were female, and 84% were non-Hispanic white. Phone surveys were completed with 88% of participants in each group. INTERVENTION(S): We adapted Project RED for use in an SNF. This includes a comprehensive approach to transitions of care that includes creating and teaching a personalized care plan to patients and their families. Software facilitating these activities was integrated into the electronic medical record of the SNF; intervention activities were delivered by existing staff. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The main outcome was hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge from the SNF. Secondary outcomes included attendance to a medical appointment within 30 days of discharge from the SNF and preparedness for care transitions as measured by a 6-item survey. RESULTS: The rate of hospitalization 30 days after discharge from the SNF for participants prior to the intervention was 18.9% and for participants during the intervention was 10.2%, P < .05. This remained significant adjusting for multiple potential confounders (P = .045). More patients in the intervention group had attended an outpatient appointment within 30 days of discharge (70.5% versus 52.0%, P < .003). In addition, intervention participants reported a higher level of preparedness for care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the intervention had a lower rate of returning to the hospital within 30 days of discharge from the SNF, were more likely to attend medical appointments, and were better prepared for their care transition.

Trends in alcohol use among women with and without myocardial infarction in the United States: 1997-2008.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the frequency and temporal trends of alcohol use among women with and without myocardial infarction (MI) in the United States. METHOD: We pooled yearly surveys from the nationally representative Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System between 1997 and 2008. Subjects for this study were 1,186,951 women, of whom 50,055 had a previous MI. Yearly weighted prevalence rates and frequencies of drinking behaviors were calculated for alcohol use in women with and without previous MI. RESULTS: Fewer post-MI women consumed alcohol than other women (24% vs. 46%), but the prevalence of drinking increased over time in both groups. Nearly one third of post-MI women and half of all women consumed more than one drink per day. Heavy episodic drinking (four or more drinks per day) increased over time in both groups. After multivariable adjustment, post-MI women were less likely to report any drinking or consuming more than one drink per day, but the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking and the increasing trends over time were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy alcohol use and heavy episodic drinking among women in the United States increased over the past decade, regardless of MI history. Although this may have reflected the influence of national guidelines on alcohol consumption, the increase in heavy episodic drinking suggests that better efforts to educate clinicians and women about the harms from excessive alcohol are required.