Paterson Rebecca S, Kenardy Justin A, Dow Belinda L, De Young Alexandra C, Pearson Kylie, Aitken Leanne M, Long Debbie A
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Paediatric Critical Care Research Group, Centre for Children's Health Research, Brisbane, Australia; Children's Health Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Children's Health Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Aust Crit Care. 2021 May;34(3):226-234. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.07.012. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
The objectives of this study was to explore the accuracy of the Cornell Assessment for Pediatric Delirium (CAP-D), Pediatric Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (pCAM-ICU), and Preschool Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (psCAM-ICU) when implemented in routine care as delirium screening tools, and to assess patient characteristics and clinical variables that may affect their validity.
This is a prospective observational study.
The study was conducted in a 36-bed, mixed paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at an Australian tertiary hospital.
The study included critically ill children developmentally aged 6 months to 17 years, with a PICU length of stay >18 h.
No interventions were provided in the study.
Patients were screened for delirium by their bedside nurse (CAP-D and pCAM-ICU/psCAM-ICU) once daily, for up to 5 d. Delirium status identified using screening instruments was compared with delirium diagnosis using the diagnostic criteria for delirium (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition). In this sample, the CAP-D retained its high sensitivity (91.3%) and good specificity (75.2%), whereas the psCAM-ICU and pCAM-ICU had moderate sensitivity (58.8% and 75.0%, respectively) and excellent specificity (89.8% and 84.9%, respectively). There was moderate agreement between the CAP-D and the psCAM-ICU (κ = 0.52, p < .001) and good agreement between the CAP-D and the pCAM-ICU (κ = 0.80, p < .01).
Although the CAP-D, psCAM-ICU, and pCAM-ICU all appear promising in their validation studies, when implemented in routine care, their performance can be variable. The CAP-D performed well in routine clinical practice, but follow-up diagnosis is required to confirm delirium. The psCAM-ICU and pCAM-ICU both provide valuable, objective assessments of delirium in critically ill children; however, further evaluation of their implementation in routine clinical practice is needed.
本研究的目的是探讨在日常护理中作为谵妄筛查工具使用时,康奈尔儿科谵妄评估量表(CAP-D)、儿科重症监护病房意识模糊评估方法(pCAM-ICU)和学龄前儿童重症监护病房意识模糊评估方法(psCAM-ICU)的准确性,并评估可能影响其有效性的患者特征和临床变量。
这是一项前瞻性观察性研究。
该研究在澳大利亚一家三级医院的一间拥有36张床位的综合性儿科重症监护病房(PICU)进行。
该研究纳入了年龄在6个月至17岁之间、入住PICU时长>18小时的危重症儿童。
本研究未提供干预措施。
由床边护士每天对患者进行一次谵妄筛查(使用CAP-D和pCAM-ICU/psCAM-ICU),最长持续5天。将使用筛查工具确定的谵妄状态与使用谵妄诊断标准(《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版)进行的谵妄诊断进行比较。在该样本中,CAP-D保持了较高的敏感性(91.3%)和良好的特异性(75.2%),而psCAM-ICU和pCAM-ICU的敏感性中等(分别为58.8%和75.0%),特异性极佳(分别为89.8%和84.9%)。CAP-D与psCAM-ICU之间存在中度一致性(κ = 0.52,p <.001),CAP-D与pCAM-ICU之间存在良好一致性(κ = 0.80,p <.01)。
尽管CAP-D、psCAM-ICU和pCAM-ICU在其验证研究中均显示出前景,但在日常护理中实施时,它们的表现可能会有所不同。CAP-D在常规临床实践中表现良好,但需要后续诊断来确诊谵妄。psCAM-ICU和pCAM-ICU均为危重症儿童的谵妄提供了有价值的客观评估;然而,需要对它们在常规临床实践中的实施情况进行进一步评估。