Sensitivity and specificity of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for detecting post-cardiac surgery delirium: A single-center study in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for detecting post-cardiac surgery delirium. BACKGROUND: These tools have not been tested in a specialized cardio-surgical ICU. METHODS: Sensitivities and specificities of each tool were assessed in a cardio-surgical ICU in Japan by two trained nurses independently. Results were compared with delirium diagnosed by psychiatrists using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision. RESULTS: There were 110 daily, paired assessments in 31 patients. The CAM-ICU showed 38% sensitivity and 100% specificity for both nurses. All 20 false-negative cases resulted from high scores in the auditory attention screening in CAM-ICU. The ICDSC showed 97% and 94% sensitivity, and 97% and 91% specificity for the two nurses (cutoff ≥4). CONCLUSION: In a Japanese cardio-surgical ICU, the ICDSC had a higher sensitivity than the CAM-ICU.

Development and Validation of a Heart Failure-Specific Health Literacy Scale.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is an important concept for patient education and disease management with heart failure (HF). However, research on HL has predominantly focused on functional HL (ability to read and write). The World Health Organization advocates evaluating comprehensive HL, including the ability to access information (communicative HL) and critically evaluate that information (critical HL). OBJECTIVE: We developed an instrument for measuring functional, communicative, and critical levels of HL in patients with HF. METHODS: We evaluated the reliability and validity of those 3 HL scales in a sample of 191 outpatients with HF (mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.9] years; 64.9% males). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, knowledge of HF, a well as motivation to obtain health information were assessed for each patient through a self-administered questionnaire and review of electronic medical records. RESULTS: We constructed scale items to reflect directly the comprehensive World Health Organization definition of HL. We identified 3 interpretable factors by exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency was marginally acceptable for total HL (Cronbach α = 0.71), functional HL (α = 0.73), communicative HL (α = 0.68), and critical HL (α = 0.69); the interclass correlation coefficients of the functional, communicative, and critical HL subscales were 0.882, 0.898, and 0.882, respectively. Low functional, communicative, and critical HL was characteristic of older patients, those with lower socioeconomic status, patients living alone, those without a high school education, and patients lacking HF knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Our new HL scale was demonstrated to be a reliable, valid instrument for measuring functional, communicative, and critical HL in patients with HF. Exploring a patient's HL level, including the ability to access, understand, and use health information as well as the ability to read and write, may provide better understanding of patients' potential barriers to self-care.