Background Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 ‘A’s test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test – 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost. Methods Phase 1 – the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 – the 4AT’s diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted. Results Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0–14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0–6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067. Limitations Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness. Conclusions These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years. Future work Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

ObjectivesTo analyse healthcare utilisation and costs in the last year of life in England, and to study variation by cause of death, region of patient residence and socioeconomic status.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study. Individuals aged 60 years and over (N=108 510) who died in England between 2010 and 2017 were included in the study.ResultsHealthcare utilisation and costs in the last year of life increased with proximity to death, particularly in the last month of life. The mean total costs were higher among males (£8089) compared with females (£6898) and declined with age at death (£9164 at age 60–69 to £5228 at age 90+) with inpatient care accounting for over 60% of total costs. Costs decline with age at death (0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.95, p<0.0001 for age group 90+ compared with to the reference category age group 60–69) and were lower among females (0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92, p<0.0001 compared with males). Costs were higher (1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14, p<0.0001) in London compared with other regions.ConclusionsHealthcare utilisation and costs in the last year of life increase with proximity to death, particularly in the last month of life. Finer geographical data and information on healthcare supply would allow further investigating whether people receiving more planned care by primary care and or specialist palliative care towards the end of life require less acute care.

Background Despite rehabilitation being increasingly advocated for people living with incurable cancer, there is limited evidence supporting efficacy or component parts. The progressive decline in function and nutritional in this population would support an approach that targets these factors. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition based rehabilitation programme in people with incurable cancer. Methods We randomized community dwelling adults with incurable cancer to either a personalized exercise and nutrition based programme (experimental arm) or standard care (control arm) for 8 weeks. Endpoints included feasibility, quality of life, physical activity (step count), and body weight. Qualitative and health economic analyses were also included. Results Forty‐five patients were recruited (23 experimental arm, 22 control arm). There were 26 men (58%), and the median age was 78 years (IQR 69–84). At baseline, the median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (IQR: 22–29), and median weight loss in the previous 6 months was 5% (IQR: −12% to 0%). Adherence to the experimental arm was >80% in 16/21 (76%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the following between trial arms: step count − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental −18.5% [IQR: −61 to 65], control 5% [IQR: −32 to 50], P = 0.548); weight − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 1%[IQR: −3 to 3], control −0.5% [IQR: −3 to 1], P = 0.184); overall quality of life − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 0% [IQR: −20 to 19], control 0% [IQR: −23 to 33], P = 0.846). Qualitative findings observed themes of capability, opportunity, and motivation amongst patients in the experimental arm. The mean incremental cost of the experimental arm versus control was £‐319.51 [CI −7593.53 to 6581.91], suggesting the experimental arm was less costly. Conclusions An exercise and nutritional rehabilitation intervention is feasible and has potential benefits for people with incurable cancer. A larger trial is now warranted to test the efficacy of this approach.