BackgroundTo date, delirium prevalence and incidence in acute hospitals has been estimated from pooled findings of studies performed in distinct patient populations.ObjectiveTo determine delirium prevalence across an acute care facility.DesignA point prevalence study.SettingA large tertiary care, teaching hospital.Patients311 general hospital adult inpatients were assessed over a single day. Of those, 280 had full data collected within the study's time frame (90%).MeasurementsInitial screening for inattention was performed using the spatial span forwards and months backwards tests by junior medical staff, followed by two independent formal delirium assessments: first the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) by trained geriatric medicine consultants and registrars, and, subsequently, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) by experienced psychiatrists. The diagnosis of delirium was ultimately made using DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) criteria.ResultsUsing DSM-IV criteria, 55 of 280 patients (19.6%) had delirium versus 17.6% using the CAM. Using the DRS-R98 total score for independent diagnosis, 20.7% had full delirium, and 8.6% had subsyndromal delirium. Prevalence was higher in older patients (4.7% if <50 years and 34.8% if >80 years) and particularly in those with prior dementia (OR=15.33, p<0.001), even when adjusted for potential confounders. Although 50.9% of delirious patients had pre-existing dementia, it was poorly documented in the medical notes. Delirium symptoms detected by medical notes, nurse interview and patient reports did not overlap much, with inattention noted by professional staff, and acute change and sleep-wake disturbance noted by patients.ConclusionsOur point prevalence study confirms that delirium occurs in about 1/5 of general hospital inpatients and particularly in those with prior cognitive impairment. Recognition strategies may need to be tailored to the symptoms most noticed by the detector (patient, nurse or primary physician) if formal assessments are not available.

This literature summary, using meta-analysis, compares the influence of parents versus peers on substance use. The data indicated that the average relationship for peer effects on substance use was larger than the effect for parental influence. Several moderating influences (such as youth age and type of substance) are considered. The findings indicate that the relative size of parental and peer influence varies with the age of the adolescent and the type of substance. The results indicate that both parents and peers influence decisions about substance use. Future educational interventions concerning substance use should consider how best to combine these two sources of influence.

BackgroundRoutine delirium screening could improve delirium detection, but it remains unclear as to which screening tool is most suitable. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of the following screening methods (either individually or in combination) in the detection of delirium: MOTYB (months of the year backwards); SSF (Spatial Span Forwards); evidence of subjective or objective ‘confusion’.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of general hospital adult inpatients in a large tertiary referral hospital. Screening tests were performed by junior medical trainees. Subsequently, two independent formal delirium assessments were performed: first, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) followed by the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 (DRS-R98). DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) criteria were used to assign delirium diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for each screening method.Results265 patients were included. The most precise screening method overall was achieved by simultaneously performing MOTYB and assessing for subjective/objective confusion (sensitivity 93.8%, 95% CI 82.8 to 98.6; specificity 84.7%, 95% CI 79.2 to 89.2). In older patients, MOTYB alone was most accurate, whereas in younger patients, a simultaneous combination of SSF (cut-off 4) with either MOTYB or assessment of subjective/objective confusion was best. In every case, addition of the CAM as a second-line screening step to improve specificity resulted in considerable loss in sensitivity.ConclusionsOur results suggest that simple attention tests may be useful in delirium screening. MOTYB used alone was the most accurate screening test in older people.

Background The frequency of full syndromal and subsyndromal delirium is understudied. Aims We conducted a point prevalence study in a general hospital. Method Possible delirium identified by testing for inattention was evaluated regarding delirium status (full/subsyndromal delirium) using categorical (Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), DSM-IV) and dimensional (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) scores) methods. Results In total 162 of 311 patients (52%) screened positive for inattention. Delirium was diagnosed in 55 patients (17.7%) using DSM-IV, 52 (16.7%) using CAM and 58 (18.6%) using DRS-R98⩾12 with concordance for 38 (12.2%) individuals. Subsyndromal delirium was identified in 24 patients (7.7%) using a DRS-R98 score of 7-11 and 41 (13.2%) using 2/4 CAM criteria. Subsyndromal delirium with inattention (v. without) had greater disturbance of multiple delirium symptoms. Conclusions The point prevalence of delirium and subsyndromal delirium was 25%. There was modest concordance between DRS-R98, DSM-IV and CAM delirium diagnoses. Inattention should be central to subsyndromal delirium definitions.