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.

ObjectivesTo quantify the prevalence and nature of adverse events in acute Irish hospitals in 2015 and to assess the impact of the National Clinical Programmes and the National Clinical Guidelines on the prevalence of adverse events by comparing these results with the previously published data from 2009.Design and methodsA retrospective chart review of 1605 admissions to eight Irish hospitals in 2015, using identical methods to those used in 2009.ResultsThe percentage of admissions associated with one or more adverse events was unchanged (p=0.48) at 14% (95% CI=10.4% to 18.4%) in 2015 compared with 12.2% (95% CI=9.5% to 15.5%) in 2009. Similarly, the prevalence of preventable adverse events was unchanged (p=0.3) at 7.4% (95% CI=5.3% to 10.5%) in 2015 compared with 9.1% (95% CI=6.9% to 11.9%) in 2009. The incidence densities of preventable adverse events were 5.6 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=3.4 to 8.0) in 2015 and 7.7 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=5.8 to 9.6) in 2009 (p=0.23). However, the percentage of preventable adverse events due to hospital-associated infections decreased to 22.2% (95% CI=15.2% to 31.1%) in 2015 from 33.1% (95% CI=25.6% to 41.6%) in 2009 (p=0.01).ConclusionAdverse event rates remained stable between 2009 and 2015. The percentage of preventable adverse events related to hospital-associated infection decreased, which may represent a positive impact of the related national programmes and guidelines.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background Adverse events are any injuries caused by healthcare management, which result in disability, increased length of stay or death. The Irish National Adverse Event Study (INAES)(1) used the Harvard Medical Practice, 2-step methodology of retrospective chart review(2) to determine the adverse event rate in the Irish inpatient cohort. Methods We further analysed the INAES data in order to calculate the prevalence and determine the impact of adverse events on the older inpatient population. Results INAES captured 1574 randomly selected adult inpatient admissions from 8 hospitals across the Republic of Ireland in 2009. 53% were female and the median age was 55years (IQR 37years to 72years). The prevalence of adverse events was higher in those aged ≥65 compared to those aged < 65 (15.4% versus 9.3% P < 0.001). When an adverse event did occur it was more likely to result in death in the ≥65 years old group (11.4% versus 2.1%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, it was 9 times more likely that an admission would result in a fatal adverse event in those aged ≥65 compared to those aged < 65 years. A further 9% of adverse events in the ≥65 age group resulted in permanent disability and over half were thought to be preventable. Older patients who suffered from an adverse event had an increased length of stay compared to older patients who did not suffer an adverse event (16days versus 6days, p <0.001) at a cost of €9,090 for each adverse-event-associated admission. Conclusion Older inpatients are more likely to suffer from an adverse event than their younger counterparts. These adverse events are more likely to contribute to increased morbidity but over half are preventable. The follow-up INAES-2 study, which is currently underway, will determine if an improvement has been made after implementation of the National Clinical Programmes.