Galske James, Sather Anna, Chera Tonya, Hwang Ula, Carpenter Christopher R, Babcock Matthew, Gettel Cameron J
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2025;54(3):160-166. doi: 10.1159/000542895. Epub 2024 Nov 29.
Emergency department (ED) screening for cognitive impairment (CI) is crucial for early intervention, yet guidance on dementia screening protocols remains limited. Our objective was to assess the concordance between the Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8) tool, a brief screening tool for CI, administered to ED patients and their informants.
We conducted a prospective observational study of dyads, including patients ≥65 years without a diagnosis of dementia seeking care in the ED and their informants (e.g., family, friend with close contact). Trained research assistants used the 4AT to exclude patients with concern for delirium. The AD8 was then administered to blinded patients (pAD8) and informants (iAD8), with scores ranging from 0 to 8 and scores of ≥2 indicating CI. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to calculate the level of agreement between AD8 scores.
Our analytic sample included 538 dyads, of which 63.3% of patients were female with a mean age of 73.5 years. A total of 131 (24.3%) patients without a diagnosis of dementia self-identified as having CI using the pAD8, in comparison to 110 (20.4%) informants using the iAD8. The ICC of 0.519 (95% CI 0.454-0.578) indicated moderate agreement between pAD8 and iAD8 scores.
When seeking emergency care, one in four older adults without a diagnosis of dementia and approximately 20% of informants indicated that patients were cognitively impaired. Our finding of moderate agreement between the pAD8 and iAD8 has important implications for clinicians providing care to patients with suspected CI and investigators conducting dementia-related studies.
急诊科(ED)对认知障碍(CI)进行筛查对于早期干预至关重要,但关于痴呆筛查方案的指导仍然有限。我们的目的是评估用于急诊科患者及其 informant 的认知障碍简短筛查工具——确定痴呆 8 项(AD8)工具之间的一致性。
我们对成对个体进行了一项前瞻性观察性研究,包括在急诊科就诊且未被诊断为痴呆的≥65 岁患者及其 informant(如家人、密切接触的朋友)。经过培训的研究助理使用 4AT 排除有谵妄疑虑的患者。然后对不知情的患者(pAD8)和 informant(iAD8)进行 AD8 评估,分数范围为 0 至 8,≥2 分表示存在认知障碍。我们使用组内相关系数(ICC)来计算 AD8 分数之间的一致程度。
我们的分析样本包括 538 对,其中 63.3%的患者为女性,平均年龄为 73.5 岁。共有 131 名(24.3%)未被诊断为痴呆的患者使用 pAD8 自我认定存在认知障碍,相比之下,110 名(20.4%) informant 使用 iAD8 得出相同结论。ICC 为 0.519(95%可信区间 0.454 - 0.578)表明 pAD8 和 iAD8 分数之间存在中度一致性。
在寻求急诊护理时,四分之一未被诊断为痴呆的老年人以及约 20%的 informant 表示患者存在认知障碍。我们发现 pAD8 和 iAD8 之间存在中度一致性,这对于为疑似认知障碍患者提供护理的临床医生以及进行痴呆相关研究的研究人员具有重要意义。