Aim A serious syndrome for cancer in-patients, delirium risk increases with age and medical acuity. Screening tools exist but detection is frequently delayed or missed. We test the ‘Single Question in Delirium’ (SQiD), in comparison to psychiatrist clinical interview. Methods Inpatients in two comprehensive cancer centres were prospectively screened. Clinical staff asked informants to respond to the SQiD: “Do you feel that [patient’s name] has been more confused lately?”. The primary endpoint was negative predictive value (NPV) of the SQiD versus psychiatrist diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual criteria). Secondary endpoints included: NPV of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Results Between May 2012 and July 2015, the SQiD plus CAM was applied to 122 patients; 73 had the SQiD and psychiatrist interview. Median age was 65 yrs. (interquartile range 54–74), 46% were female; median length of hospital stay was 12 days (5–18 days). Major cancer types were lung (19%), gastric or other upper GI (15%) and breast (14%). 70% of participants had stage 4 cancer. Diagnostic values were similar between the SQiD (NPV = 74, 95% CI 67–81; kappa = 0.32) and CAM (NPV = 72, 95% CI 67–77, kappa = 0.32), compared with psychiatrist interview. Overall the CAM identified only a small number of delirious cases but all were true positives. The specificity of the SQiD was 87% (74–95) The SQiD had higher sensitivity than CAM (44% [95% CI 41–80] vs 26% [10–48]). Conclusion The SQiD, administered by bedside clinical staff, was feasible and its psychometric properties are now better understood. The SQiD can contribute to delirium detection and clinical care for hospitalised cancer patients.

No abstract

The development of a dedicated operational manual for CLP clarified the roles, functions and governance of CLP within the general hospital and mental health systems. The development process facilitated the engagement of key clinicians and administrators of these systems, the determination of quality improvement targets and greater transparency and accountability.

Objectives: The aims were to develop and operationalise a method of identifying patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes due to clinical and systems complexity within consultation-liaison psychiatry (CLP), and to formalise escalation processes for enhanced input with targeted clinical and organisational support. Methods: The literature pertaining to methods for identifying and responding to complexity in general hospital settings was reviewed. An Escalation Tool operationalising the identification of complexity and response pathways was devised and tested. Feedback on the face validity and utility guided refinement. Results: Two established tools that assess complexity, INTERMED and the Patient-Centred Accreditation method (PCAM) and a novel ‘episode complexity’ screening method, were identified and informed the development of a tool for identifying and responding to complexity, which was then piloted. The tool was deemed useful, notwithstanding variability in scoring. Conclusions: The Escalation Tool combined elements of existing measures to identify complexity in general hospital inpatients and guide pathways for action. It was well received and considered feasible for implementation, with local adaptation according to available resources.