IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0111823.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a Consensus Method for Identifying Delirium from Hospital Records

Author

Listed:
  • Elvira Kuhn
  • Xinyi Du
  • Keith McGrath
  • Sarah Coveney
  • Niamh O'Regan
  • Sarah Richardson
  • Andrew Teodorczuk
  • Louise Allan
  • Dan Wilson
  • Sharon K Inouye
  • Alasdair M J MacLullich
  • David Meagher
  • Carol Brayne
  • Suzanne Timmons
  • Daniel Davis

Abstract

Background: Delirium is increasingly considered to be an important determinant of trajectories of cognitive decline. Therefore, analyses of existing cohort studies measuring cognitive outcomes could benefit from methods to ascertain a retrospective delirium diagnosis. This study aimed to develop and validate such a method for delirium detection using routine medical records in UK and Ireland. Methods: A point prevalence study of delirium provided the reference-standard ratings for delirium diagnosis. Blinded to study results, clinical vignettes were compiled from participants' medical records in a standardised manner, describing any relevant delirium symptoms recorded in the whole case record for the period leading up to case-ascertainment. An expert panel rated each vignette as unlikely, possible, or probable delirium and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results: From 95 case records, 424 vignettes were abstracted by 5 trained clinicians. There were 29 delirium cases according to the reference standard. Median age of subjects was 76.6 years (interquartile range 54.6 to 82.5). Against the original study DSM-IV diagnosis, the chart abstraction method gave a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 7.8 (95% CI 5.7–12.0) and the negative LR of 0.45 (95% CI 0.40–0.47) for probable delirium (sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.53–0.62); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95); AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.89)). The method diagnosed possible delirium with positive LR 3.5 (95% CI 2.9–4.3) and negative LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.11–0.21) (sensitivity 0.89 (95% CI 0.85–0.91); specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.71–0.79); AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.80–0.89)). Conclusions: This chart abstraction method can retrospectively diagnose delirium in hospitalised patients with good accuracy. This has potential for retrospectively identifying delirium in cohort studies where routine medical records are available. This example of record linkage between hospitalisations and epidemiological data may lead to further insights into the inter-relationship between acute illness, as an exposure, for a range of chronic health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Elvira Kuhn & Xinyi Du & Keith McGrath & Sarah Coveney & Niamh O'Regan & Sarah Richardson & Andrew Teodorczuk & Louise Allan & Dan Wilson & Sharon K Inouye & Alasdair M J MacLullich & David Meagher & , 2014. "Validation of a Consensus Method for Identifying Delirium from Hospital Records," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111823
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111823
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111823&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0111823?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111823. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.