Comparison of CIWA-Ar and MINDS Alcohol Withdrawal Assessments in Hospitalized Patients: Comparison of CIWA-Ar and MINDS.

Sean P Kane, Sandra M Cebrij, Karen L Hanson
{"title":"Comparison of CIWA-Ar and MINDS Alcohol Withdrawal Assessments in Hospitalized Patients: Comparison of CIWA-Ar and MINDS.","authors":"Sean P Kane, Sandra M Cebrij, Karen L Hanson","doi":"10.1097/JAN.0000000000000617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment (CIWA-Ar) and the Minnesota Detoxification Scale (MINDS) are two scales used to assess alcohol withdrawal symptom severity among hospitalized patients. There is a lack of data supporting the reliability of these scales in acutely ill patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to measure the reliability of CIWA-Ar and modified MINDS (mMINDS) and the correlation of the two scales to each other.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, observational study was conducted to evaluate adult patients with an alcohol withdrawal order set within 48 hr of hospital admission at two community hospitals. During nursing hand-off, the outgoing and incoming nurse both completed a CIWA-Ar and mMINDS assessment consecutively and independently. Correlations between CIWA-Ar, mMINDS, and the two observers were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 114 hand-off observations were collected for 73 patients. The frequency of an \"unable to assess\" item resulting in an invalid total score was 34.2% with CIWA-Ar and 28.9% with mMINDS. The median scores for CIWA-Ar and mMINDS were both 6 (IQR 3 to 10) and correlated well to each other (r = .801). Correlations between the two nurse raters was moderate for both CIWA-Ar (r = .68) and mMINDS (r = .72). As withdrawal scores increased, the difference in score between nursing raters also increased for both instruments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CIWA-Ar and mMINDS are moderately correlated to each other and produce similar total scores. Correlations between two nursing raters suggest similar performance in rater agreement for both instruments; however, performance diminished as withdrawal severity increased.</p>","PeriodicalId":94062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of addictions nursing","volume":"36 2","pages":"99-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of addictions nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment (CIWA-Ar) and the Minnesota Detoxification Scale (MINDS) are two scales used to assess alcohol withdrawal symptom severity among hospitalized patients. There is a lack of data supporting the reliability of these scales in acutely ill patients.

Objective: The objective of this study was to measure the reliability of CIWA-Ar and modified MINDS (mMINDS) and the correlation of the two scales to each other.

Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted to evaluate adult patients with an alcohol withdrawal order set within 48 hr of hospital admission at two community hospitals. During nursing hand-off, the outgoing and incoming nurse both completed a CIWA-Ar and mMINDS assessment consecutively and independently. Correlations between CIWA-Ar, mMINDS, and the two observers were calculated.

Results: A total of 114 hand-off observations were collected for 73 patients. The frequency of an "unable to assess" item resulting in an invalid total score was 34.2% with CIWA-Ar and 28.9% with mMINDS. The median scores for CIWA-Ar and mMINDS were both 6 (IQR 3 to 10) and correlated well to each other (r = .801). Correlations between the two nurse raters was moderate for both CIWA-Ar (r = .68) and mMINDS (r = .72). As withdrawal scores increased, the difference in score between nursing raters also increased for both instruments.

Conclusion: CIWA-Ar and mMINDS are moderately correlated to each other and produce similar total scores. Correlations between two nursing raters suggest similar performance in rater agreement for both instruments; however, performance diminished as withdrawal severity increased.

CIWA-Ar和MINDS对住院患者酒精戒断评估的比较:CIWA-Ar和MINDS的比较
背景:修订后的临床研究所戒断评估(CIWA-Ar)和明尼苏达解毒量表(MINDS)是两种用于评估住院患者酒精戒断症状严重程度的量表。缺乏数据支持这些量表在急性病人中的可靠性。目的:本研究的目的是衡量CIWA-Ar量表和修改后的心智量表(mMINDS)的信度以及两者之间的相关性。方法:一项前瞻性观察性研究对两家社区医院住院48小时内设定酒精戒断令的成年患者进行了评估。在护理交接期间,离任护士和入职护士均连续独立完成CIWA-Ar和mMINDS评估。计算了CIWA-Ar、mMINDS和两个观察者之间的相关性。结果:73例患者共收集到114例交接观察。“无法评估”项目导致总分无效的频率在CIWA-Ar中为34.2%,在mMINDS中为28.9%。CIWA-Ar和mMINDS的中位得分均为6分(IQR为3 ~ 10分),且相关性良好(r = 0.801)。两种护士评分者在CIWA-Ar (r = 0.68)和mMINDS (r = 0.72)上的相关性均为中等。随着戒断评分的增加,两种工具的护理评分者之间的评分差异也在增加。结论:CIWA-Ar与mMINDS呈正相关,总分相近。两种护理评分器之间的相关性表明两种工具的评分一致性相似;然而,表现随着戒断严重程度的增加而下降。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信