The DEMS-DOSS study: validating a delirium monitoring tool in hospitalised older adults
Age and Ageing, ISSN: 1468-2834, Vol: 51, Issue: 2
2022
- 3Citations
- 2Usage
- 31Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Citation Indexes1
- Usage2
- Abstract Views2
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Article Description
Objective: to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and test–retest reliability of the Delirium Early Monitoring System-Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DEMS-DOSS). Design: prospective diagnostic accuracy study of a convenience sample of admitted older adults with DEMS-DOSS and reference standard assessments. Setting: 60-bed aged care precinct at a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. Participants: 156 patients (aged ≥65 years old) were recruited to participate between April 2018 and March 2020. One hundred participants were included in the analysis. Measurements: Participants were scored on the DEMS-DOSS. Trained senior aged care nurses conducted a standardised clinical interview based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM)-IV delirium criteria, within two hours of DEMS-DOSS completion. The senior aged care nurse undertaking the DSM-IV interview was blinded to the results of the DEMS-DOSS. Results: Participants’ mean age was 84 (SD ±7.3) years and 39% (n = 39) had a documented diagnosis of dementia. Delirium was detected in 38% (n = 38) according to the reference standard. The DEMS-DOSS had a sensitivity of 76.3% and a specificity of 75.8% for delirium. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for delirium was 0.76. The test–retest reliability of the DEMS-DOSS was found to be high (r = 0.915). Conclusion: DEMS-DOSS is a sensitive and specific tool to assist with monitoring new onset and established delirium in hospitalised older adults. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of the monitoring tool on health outcomes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85125155008&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac012; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35192683; https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/doi/10.1093/ageing/afac012/6530459; https://ro.uow.edu.au/test2021/4168; https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5177&context=test2021; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac012; https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/51/2/afac012/6530459
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know