The validity and reliability of the portuguese versions of three tools used to diagnose delirium in critically ill patients

The validity and reliability of the portuguese versions of three tools used to diagnose delirium in critically ill patients

Author Gusmao-Flores, Dimitri Google Scholar
Salluh, Jorge Ibrain Figueira Google Scholar
Dal-Pizzol, Felipe Google Scholar
Ritter, Cristiane Google Scholar
Tomasi, Cristiane Damiani Google Scholar
Lima, Marco Antônio Sales Dantas de Google Scholar
Santana, Lauro Reis Google Scholar
Lins, Rita Márcia Pacheco Google Scholar
Lemos, Patrícia Pimenta Google Scholar
Serpa, Gisele Vasconcelos Google Scholar
Oliveira, Jenisson Google Scholar
Chalhub, Ricardo Ávila Google Scholar
Pitrowsky, Melissa Tassano Google Scholar
Lacerda, Acioly Luiz Tavares de Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Koenen, Karestan C Google Scholar
Quarantini, Lucas de Castro Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Institution Universidade Federal da Bahia University Hospital Prof. Edgar Santos Intensive Care Unit
D'Or Institute of Research and Education
Instituto Nacional do Câncer Intensive Care Unit
Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense Laboratório de Fisiopatologia Experimental
Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Translacional em Medicina
Instituto Nacional do Câncer Neurosurgery Section
Universidade Federal da Bahia University Hospital Prof. Edgar Santos Department of Psychiatry
Universidade Federal da Bahia Instituto de Ciências da Saúde Programa de Pós-graduação em Processos Interativos dos Órgãos e Sistemas
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
Harvard School of Public Health Departments of Society, Human Development, and Health & Epidemiology
Abstract OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to compare the sensitivity and specificity of three diagnostic tools for delirium (the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units and the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet) in a mixed population of critically ill patients, and to validate the Brazilian Portuguese Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units. METHODS: The study was conducted in four intensive care units in Brazil. Patients were screened for delirium by a psychiatrist or neurologist using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Patients were subsequently screened by an intensivist using Portuguese translations of the three tools. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were evaluated and 38.6% were diagnosed with delirium by the reference rater. The Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units had a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 96.2%; the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet had a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 96.2%; the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist had a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 72.4%. There was strong agreement between the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units and the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet (kappa coefficient = 0.96) CONCLUSION: All three instruments are effective diagnostic tools in critically ill intensive care unit patients. In addition, the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of delirium among critically ill patients.
Keywords CAM-ICU
ICDSC
CAM-ICU Flowsheet
Critical care
Delirium
Language English
Sponsor Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Date 2011-01-01
Published in Clinics. Faculdade de Medicina / USP, v. 66, n. 11, p. 1917-1922, 2011.
ISSN 1807-5932 (Sherpa/Romeo, impact factor)
Publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
Extent 1917-1922
Origin http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322011001100011
Access rights Open access Open Access
Type Article
Web of Science ID WOS:000297498600011
SciELO ID S1807-59322011001100011 (statistics in SciELO)
URI http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6180

Show full item record




File

Name: S1807-59322011001100011.pdf
Size: 273.5Kb
Format: PDF
Description:
Open file

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search


Browse

Statistics

My Account