Screening for Cognitive Impairment in the Emergency Department: Agreement between Older Adult Patient- and Informant-Completed Ascertain Dementia 8 Tool.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
James Galske, Anna Sather, Tonya Chera, Ula Hwang, Christopher R Carpenter, Matthew Babcock, Cameron J Gettel
{"title":"Screening for Cognitive Impairment in the Emergency Department: Agreement between Older Adult Patient- and Informant-Completed Ascertain Dementia 8 Tool.","authors":"James Galske, Anna Sather, Tonya Chera, Ula Hwang, Christopher R Carpenter, Matthew Babcock, Cameron J Gettel","doi":"10.1159/000542895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11126,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

急诊科的认知障碍筛查:老年患者和被调查者之间的共识——确定痴呆8工具
急诊科(ED)认知障碍(CI)筛查对早期干预至关重要,但痴呆筛查方案的指导仍然有限。我们的目的是评估给ED患者和他们的线人使用的一种简短的CI筛查工具——确定痴呆8 (AD8)之间的一致性。方法我们进行了一项前瞻性观察性研究,包括在急诊科寻求治疗的≥65岁未诊断为痴呆的患者及其信息提供者(如家人、密切接触的朋友)。训练有素的研究助理使用4AT排除患有谵妄的患者。然后将AD8给予盲法患者(pAD8)和告密者(iAD8),评分范围为0-8,评分≥2表示CI。我们使用类内相关系数(ICC)来计算AD8评分之间的一致程度。结果分析样本538对,其中女性占63.3%,平均年龄73.5岁。共有131名(24.3%)未诊断为痴呆的患者使用pAD8自我识别为CI,而使用iAD8的患者为110名(20.4%)。ICC为0.519 (95% CI 0.454-0.578)表明pAD8和iAD8评分之间存在中度一致。在寻求紧急护理时,四分之一未被诊断为痴呆症的老年人和约20%的举报者表示患者存在认知障碍。我们发现pAD8和iAD8之间存在适度的一致性,这对临床医生为疑似CI患者提供护理以及开展痴呆相关研究的研究人员具有重要意义。
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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: As a unique forum devoted exclusively to the study of cognitive dysfunction, ''Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders'' concentrates on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field.
×
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