Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:24:14.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison of delirium diagnosis in elderly medical inpatients using the CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

Dimitrios Adamis*
Affiliation:
Sligo Mental Health Services, Clarion Rd Sligo, Ireland Research and Academic Institute of Athens, Greece
Siobhan Rooney
Affiliation:
Sligo Medical Academy, NUI Galway, Sligo Mental Health Services Clarion Rd Sligo, Ireland
David Meagher
Affiliation:
Cognitive Impairment Research Group (CIRG), Graduate-Entry Medical School University of Limerick, Ireland
Owen Mulligan
Affiliation:
Sligo Mental Health Services, Clarion Rd Sligo, Ireland
Geraldine McCarthy
Affiliation:
Sligo Medical Academy, NUI Galway, Sligo Mental Health Services Clarion Rd Sligo, Ireland
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dimitrios Adamis, Consultant Psychiatrist, Sligo Mental Health Services Clarion Rd Sligo, Ireland. Phone: +353719144829; Fax: +353719144177. Email: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Background:

The recently published DSM-5 criteria for delirium may lead to different case identification and rates of delirium than previous classifications. The aims of this study are to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria compare with DSM-IV in identification of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, using CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 criteria.

Methods:

Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days of admission using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, and CAM scales.

Results:

We assessed 200 patients [mean age 81.1±6.5; 50% female; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 63%]. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic method were: 13.0% (n = 26) for DSM-5; 19.5% (n = 39) for DSM-IV; 13.5% (n = 27) for DRS-R98 and 17.0%, (n = 34) for CAM. Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (ρtetr = 0.64, SE = 0.1, p < 0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods.

Conclusions:

DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamis, D., Treloar, A., Martin, F. C. and Macdonald, A. J. (2010). Ethical research in delirium: arguments for including decisionally incapacitated subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 169174.Google Scholar
Adamis, D., Treloar, A., Martin, F. C. and Macdonald, A. J. D. (2007). A brief review of the history of delirium as a mental disorder. History of Psychiatry, 18, 459469.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn. DSM-III. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn. Revised. DSM-IIIR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn. DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Aru, J. and Bachmann, T. (2013). Phenomenal awareness can emerge without attention. Frontier in Human Neuroscience, 7, 891.Google Scholar
Blazer, D. G. and van Nieuwenhuizen, A. O. (2012). Evidence for the diagnostic criteria of delirium: an update. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25, 239243.Google Scholar
Block, N. (2011). Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 567575.Google Scholar
Breitbart, W. and Alici, Y. (2008). Agitation and delirium at the end of life: “We couldn't manage him.” JAMA, 300, 28982910, E2891.Google Scholar
Cole, M. G. (2013). Subsyndromal delirium in old age: conceptual and methodological issues. International Psychogeriatric, 25, 863866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, M. G., Dendukuri, N., McCusker, J. and Han, L. (2003). An empirical study of different diagnostic criteria for delirium among elderly medical inpatients. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 15, 200207.Google Scholar
Ely, E. W. et al. (2004). Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA, 291, 17531762.Google Scholar
European Delirium Association and American Delirium Society (2014). The DSM-5 criteria, level of arousal and delirium diagnosis: inclusiveness is safer. BMC Medicine, 12, 141.Google Scholar
Franco, J. G. et al. (2010). Relationship between cognitive status at admission and incident delirium in older medical inpatients. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 22, 329337.Google Scholar
Harwood, D. M., Hope, T. and Jacoby, R. (1997). Cognitive impairment in medical inpatients. I: Screening for dementia–is history better than mental state? Age Ageing, 26, 3135.Google Scholar
Kazmierski, J. et al. (2008). Clinical utility and use of DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria and the memorial delirium assessment scale in establishing a diagnosis of delirium after cardiac surgery. Psychosomatics, 49, 7376.Google Scholar
Koch, C. and Tsuchiya, N. (2007). Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 1622.Google Scholar
Laurila, J. V., Pitkala, K. H., Strandberg, T. E. and Tilvis, R. S. (2003). The impact of different diagnostic criteria on prevalence rates for delirium. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 16, 156162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liptzin, B. et al. (1991). An empirical study of diagnostic criteria for delirium. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 454457.Google ScholarPubMed
Liptzin, B., Levkoff, S. E., Gottlieb, G. L. and Johnson, J. C. (1993). Delirium. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 5, 154160.Google ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Velilla, N., Alonso-Bouzon, C., Cambra-Contin, K., Ibanez-Beroiz, B. and Alonso-Renedo, J. (2013). Outcomes in complex patients with delirium and subsyndromal delirium one year after hospital discharge. International Psychogeriatric, 25, 20872088.Google Scholar
Meagher, D. J., Leonard, M., Donnelly, S., Conroy, M., Adamis, D. and Trzepacz, P. T. (2011). A longitudinal study of motor subtypes in delirium: relationship with other phenomenology, etiology, medication exposure and prognosis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71, 395403.Google Scholar
Meagher, D. J., Maclullich, A. M. and Laurila, J. V. (2008). Defining delirium for the international classification of diseases, 11th Revision. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65, 207214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meagher, D. et al. (2014). Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98. BMC Medicine 12, 164.Google Scholar
Morandi, A. et al. (2013). Consensus and variations in opinions on delirium care: a survey of European delirium specialists. International Psychogeriatric, 25, 20672075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, O. W. (2012). Hallucinations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Sweet, L. et al. (2014). Ethical challenges and solutions regarding delirium studies in palliative care. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 48, 259271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C., Kreisel, S. H., Oster, P., Driessen, M., Arolt, V. and Inouye, S. K. (2012). Diagnosing delirium in older hospitalized adults with dementia: adapting the confusion assessment method to international classification of diseases, tenth revision, diagnostic criteria. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 14711477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treloar, A. J. and Macdonald, A. J. (1997a). Outcome of delirium: part 1. Outcome of delirium diagnosed by DSM-III-R, ICD-10 and CAMDEX and derivation of the reversible cognitive dysfunction scale among acute geriatric inpatients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 609613.Google Scholar
Treloar, A. J. and Macdonald, A. J. (1997b). Outcome of delirium: part 2. Clinical features of reversible cognitive dysfunction–are they the same as accepted definitions of delirium? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 614618.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trzepacz, P. T., Mittal, D., Torres, R., Kanary, K., Norton, J. and Jimerson, N. (2001). Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 13, 229242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bussche, E., Hughes, G., Humbeeck, N. V. and Reynvoet, B. (2010). The relation between consciousness and attention: an empirical study using the priming paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 8697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witlox, J., Eurelings, L. S., de Jonghe, J. F., Kalisvaart, K. J., Eikelenboom, P. and van Gool, W. A. (2010). Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 304, 443451.Google Scholar