Numan T, van den Boogaard M, Kampen A M, Rood P J T, Peelen L M, Slooter A J C
* Dit onderzoek werd eerder gepubliceerd in Journal of the American Geriatric Society (2017;65:1932-38) met als titel 'Recognition of delirium in postoperative elderly patients: a multicenter study'. Afgedrukt met toestemming.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2017;161:D1885.
To determine the degree of agreement between delirium experts on the diagnosis of delirium based on exactly the same information, and to assess the sensitivity of delirium screening methods used by clinical nurses.
Prospective observational longitudinal study.
Older patients (≥ 60 years) who underwent major surgery were included. During the first three days after surgery they had a standardised cognitive screening test which was recorded on video. Two delirium experts independently evaluated these videos and the information from the patient records. They classified the patients as having 'no delirium', 'possible delirium' or 'delirium'. If there was disagreement, a third expert was consulted. The final classification, based on consensus of two or three delirium experts, was compared with the result of the delirium screening carried out by the clinical nurses.
A total of 167 patients were included and 424 postoperative classifications were obtained. The agreement between the experts was 0.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.68), based on Cohen's kappa. In 89 (21.0%) of the postoperative classifications there was no agreement between the experts and a third expert was consulted. The nurses using the delirium screening tools recognised 32% of the cases that had been classified as delirium by the experts.
There was considerable disagreement between the classifications of individual delirium experts, based on exactly the same information, indicating the difficulty of the diagnosis. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the delirium screening tools used by the clinical nurses was poor. Further research should focus on the development of objective methods for recognising delirium.
基于完全相同的信息,确定谵妄专家在谵妄诊断上的一致程度,并评估临床护士使用的谵妄筛查方法的敏感性。
前瞻性观察性纵向研究。
纳入接受大手术的老年患者(≥60岁)。术后前三天,他们接受标准化认知筛查测试,并录制视频。两名谵妄专家独立评估这些视频以及患者记录中的信息。他们将患者分类为“无谵妄”、“可能有谵妄”或“有谵妄”。若存在分歧,则咨询第三位专家。将基于两到三位谵妄专家共识的最终分类结果与临床护士进行的谵妄筛查结果进行比较。
共纳入167例患者,获得424个术后分类结果。基于科恩kappa系数,专家之间的一致性为0.61(95%置信区间(CI):0.53 - 0.68)。在89个(21.0%)术后分类结果中,专家之间存在分歧,因此咨询了第三位专家。使用谵妄筛查工具的护士识别出专家分类为谵妄的病例中的32%。
基于完全相同的信息,个体谵妄专家的分类之间存在相当大的分歧,这表明诊断存在困难。此外,临床护士使用的谵妄筛查工具的敏感性较差。进一步的研究应侧重于开发识别谵妄的客观方法。