Delirium scales: A review of current evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition with many adverse outcomes in elderly populations including death. Despite this, it is often misdiagnosed and mistreated. A number of scales can be used to detect delirium. We review scales that have been used in delirium studies and report their psychometric properties. METHOD: An extensive MEDLINE database search and subsequent examination of reference lists was conducted to identify the various delirium scales that have been designed, primarily for use in the elderly. RESULTS: Twenty-four scales were identified. Delirium instruments differed according to the classification system they were based on, length of time to administer, the rater and whether they were screening scales or measured symptom severity. The psychometric properties of each scale is reported. CONCLUSION: A large number of scales exist, but not all are properly evaluated in terms of psychometric properties, and there is not unanimity about which scale is the best. However, a small number of scales may be considered already to be robust and useable: the CAM, the DRS, the MDAS and the NEECHAM.

The role of AA sponsors: a pilot study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the roles of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsors and to describe the characteristics of a sample of sponsors. METHODS: Twenty-eight AA sponsors, recruited using a purposive sampling method, were administered an unstructured qualitative interview and standardized questionnaires. The measurements included: a content analysis of sponsors' responses; Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire-Community version (SADQ-C) and Alcoholics Anonymous Affiliation Scale (AAAS). RESULTS: Sample characteristics were as follows: the median length of AA attendance was 9.5 years (range 5-28); the median length of sobriety was 11 years (range 4.5-28); the median number of sponsees per sponsor was 1 but there was a wide range (0-17, interquartile range 3.75); and the sponsors were highly affiliated to AA (median AAAS score 8.75, range 5.5-8.75, maximum possible score 9). Past alcohol dependence scores were surprisingly low: 5 (18%) sponsors had mild, 14 (50%) moderate and 9 (32%) severe dependence according to the SADQ-C (median 26.5, range 11-56). Sponsorship roles were as follows: 16 roles were identified through the initial content analysis. These were distilled into three super-ordinate roles through a thematic analysis: (1) encouraging sponsees to work the programme of AA (doing the 12 steps and engaging in AA activity); (2) support (regular contact, emotional support and practical support); and (3) carrying the message of AA (sharing sponsor's personal experience of recovery with sponsees). CONCLUSIONS: The roles identified broadly corresponded with the AA literature delineating the duties of a sponsor. This non-random sample of sponsors was highly engaged in AA activity but only had a past history of moderate alcohol dependence.

The utility of the Mini-Mental State Examination in guiding assessment of capacity to consent to research.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) predictive of capacity to consent to power of attorney and to enter into residential care. We aimed to assess the utility of the MMSE in predicting capacity to consent to research in elderly U.K. care home residents, to determine the optimal cut-point score, and to ascertain which items of the MMSE most predicted capacity. METHODS: Care home residents (n = 227) who had been recruited into a randomized controlled trial and assessed for capacity to consent were subsequently administered the MMSE and a measure of depression. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was generated and the maximal MMSE cut-point that best predicted capacity status determined. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of other variables on capacity status. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.80-0.91). The optimal cut-point was 13/14, which provided a positive predictive value of 0.84 (0.79-0.89) and negative predictive value of 0.69 (0.62-0.75). The odds ratio of a MMSE score > or = 14 predicting having capacity was 11.95 (6.03-23.94). Depression reduced the odds of having capacity (OR 0.32, 0.17-0.62, p = 0.001). All individual items of the MMSE apart from following a written command ("close your eyes") had odds ratios significantly associated with capacity status. The item most associated with capacity status was being able to verbally repeat a sentence ("no ifs, ands, or buts") correctly (OR 5.6, 95% CI 3.0-10.5). CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE is predictive of capacity to consent to research and may have a role in guiding researchers in this domain. It should not, however, be used in lieu of a formal capacity assessment as even the optimal cut-point of 13/14 mislabeled 24% of capable subjects as lacking capacity, and 21% of incapable subjects as having capacity.