A Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Language Preference and Preoperative Cognitive Screening in Older Adults: Do Language Disparities Exist in Cognitive Screening and Does the Association Between Test Results and Postoperative Delirium Differ Based on Language Preference?

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesia and analgesia Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000006780
Cecilia Canales, Cecilia M Ramirez, Shangyang C Yang, Sharon A Feinberg, Tristan R Grogan, Robert A Whittington, Catherine Sarkisian, Maxime Cannesson
{"title":"A Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Language Preference and Preoperative Cognitive Screening in Older Adults: Do Language Disparities Exist in Cognitive Screening and Does the Association Between Test Results and Postoperative Delirium Differ Based on Language Preference?","authors":"Cecilia Canales, Cecilia M Ramirez, Shangyang C Yang, Sharon A Feinberg, Tristan R Grogan, Robert A Whittington, Catherine Sarkisian, Maxime Cannesson","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A greater percentage of surgical procedures are being performed each year on patients 65 years of age or older. Concurrently, a growing proportion of patients in English-speaking countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have a language other than English (LOE) preference. We aimed to measure whether patients with LOE underwent cognitive screening at the same rates as their English-speaking counterparts when routine screening was instituted. We also aimed to measure the association between preoperative Mini-Cog and postoperative delirium (POD) in both English-speaking and LOE patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center, observational cohort study in patients 65 years old or older, scheduled for surgery and evaluated in the preoperative clinic. Cognitive screening of older adults was recommended as an institutional program for all patients 65 and older presenting to the preoperative clinic. We measured program adherence for cognitive screening. We also assessed the association of preoperative impairment on Mini-Cog and POD in both English-speaking and LOE patients, and whether the association differed for the 2 groups. A Mini-Cog score ≤2 was considered impaired. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for POD using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and by systematic chart review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over a 3-year period (February 2019-January 2022), 2446 patients 65 years old or older were assessed in the preoperative clinic prior. Of those 1956 patients underwent cognitive screening. Eighty-nine percent of English-speaking patients underwent preoperative cognitive screening, compared to 58% of LOE patients. The odds of having a Mini-Cog assessment were 5.6 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-7.0) P < .001 for English-speaking patients compared to LOE patients. In English-speaking patients with a positive Mini-Cog screen, the odds of having postop delirium were 3.5 times higher (95% CI, 2.6-4.8) P < .001 when compared to negative Mini-Cog. In LOE patients, the odds of having postop delirium were 3.9 times higher (95% CI, 2.1-7.3) P < .001 for those with a positive Mini-Cog compared to a negative Mini-Cog. The difference between these 2 odds ratios was not significant ( P = .753).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We observed a disparity in the rates LOE patients were cognitively screened before surgery, despite the Mini-Cog being associated with POD in both English-speaking and LOE patients. Efforts should be made to identify barriers to cognitive screening in limited English-proficient older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":"903-911"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303592/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006780","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A greater percentage of surgical procedures are being performed each year on patients 65 years of age or older. Concurrently, a growing proportion of patients in English-speaking countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have a language other than English (LOE) preference. We aimed to measure whether patients with LOE underwent cognitive screening at the same rates as their English-speaking counterparts when routine screening was instituted. We also aimed to measure the association between preoperative Mini-Cog and postoperative delirium (POD) in both English-speaking and LOE patients.

Methods: We conducted a single-center, observational cohort study in patients 65 years old or older, scheduled for surgery and evaluated in the preoperative clinic. Cognitive screening of older adults was recommended as an institutional program for all patients 65 and older presenting to the preoperative clinic. We measured program adherence for cognitive screening. We also assessed the association of preoperative impairment on Mini-Cog and POD in both English-speaking and LOE patients, and whether the association differed for the 2 groups. A Mini-Cog score ≤2 was considered impaired. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for POD using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and by systematic chart review.

Results: Over a 3-year period (February 2019-January 2022), 2446 patients 65 years old or older were assessed in the preoperative clinic prior. Of those 1956 patients underwent cognitive screening. Eighty-nine percent of English-speaking patients underwent preoperative cognitive screening, compared to 58% of LOE patients. The odds of having a Mini-Cog assessment were 5.6 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-7.0) P < .001 for English-speaking patients compared to LOE patients. In English-speaking patients with a positive Mini-Cog screen, the odds of having postop delirium were 3.5 times higher (95% CI, 2.6-4.8) P < .001 when compared to negative Mini-Cog. In LOE patients, the odds of having postop delirium were 3.9 times higher (95% CI, 2.1-7.3) P < .001 for those with a positive Mini-Cog compared to a negative Mini-Cog. The difference between these 2 odds ratios was not significant ( P = .753).

Conclusions: We observed a disparity in the rates LOE patients were cognitively screened before surgery, despite the Mini-Cog being associated with POD in both English-speaking and LOE patients. Efforts should be made to identify barriers to cognitive screening in limited English-proficient older adults.

语言偏好与老年人术前认知筛查的前瞻性观察队列研究:认知筛查中是否存在语言差异,测试结果与术后谵妄之间的关联是否因语言偏好而异?
背景:每年都有越来越多的外科手术是为 65 岁或以上的患者实施的。与此同时,在美国、英国、澳大利亚和加拿大等英语国家,越来越多的患者偏好英语以外的语言(LOE)。我们的目的是测量在开展常规筛查时,使用非英语语言(LOE)的患者接受认知筛查的比例是否与使用英语的患者相同。我们还旨在测量讲英语和讲 LOE 患者术前 Mini-Cog 与术后谵妄(POD)之间的关联:我们对 65 岁或以上、计划接受手术并在术前门诊接受评估的患者进行了一项单中心观察性队列研究。我们建议将老年人认知筛查作为一项机构计划,适用于所有前来术前门诊就诊的 65 岁及以上患者。我们测量了认知筛查计划的执行情况。我们还评估了讲英语的患者和讲俄语的患者术前认知障碍与 Mini-Cog 和 POD 的关系,以及这两组患者术前认知障碍与 POD 的关系是否存在差异。Mini-Cog 评分≤2 分被视为智力受损。术后,采用混淆评估法(CAM)和系统性病历审查对患者进行POD评估:在 3 年内(2019 年 2 月至 2022 年 1 月),共有 2446 名 65 岁或以上的患者在术前门诊接受了评估。其中 1956 名患者接受了认知筛查。89%的英语患者接受了术前认知筛查,而 LOE 患者的这一比例为 58%。与 LOE 患者相比,讲英语的患者接受 Mini-Cog 评估的几率要高出 5.6 倍(95% 置信区间 [CI],4.6-7.0),P < .001。在 Mini-Cog 筛查呈阳性的英语患者中,与 Mini-Cog 筛查呈阴性的患者相比,术后出现谵妄的几率高出 3.5 倍(95% 置信区间 [CI],2.6-4.8),P < .001。在LOE患者中,Mini-Cog阳性与Mini-Cog阴性相比,术后出现谵妄的几率高出3.9倍(95% CI,2.1-7.3),P < .001。这两个几率之间的差异不显著(P = .753):我们观察到,尽管Mini-Cog与英语患者和LOE患者的POD相关,但LOE患者在术前接受认知筛查的比例存在差异。应努力找出英语水平有限的老年人进行认知筛查的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信