Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Confusion: delirium and dementia - a smartphone app to improve cognitive assessment
Selina Sangha, J George, Craig Winthrop, Sonia Panchal. BMJ quality improvement reports, 2015-01-21
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Older patients with dementia and delirium are more prone to adverse events in hospital, but formal cognitive assessment to identify these vulnerable patients on admission is often not carried out by junior doctors. A smartphone app was created and provided on hospital wards to facilitate the use of standard cognitive assessments for delirium and dementia. Before the introduction of the app, 36% of patients over 75 years old were assessed cognitively. After the app, the percentage of cognitive assessments improved to 63%. Improvements in cognitive assessments were most marked after individual teaching of the doctors on the wards in the use of the app and on making the app available on the ward tablets. The results of the study suggest that the introduction of a smartphone app for junior doctors can improve performance in cognitive assessment of older people.
Key findings
- The results of the study suggest that the introduction of a smartphone app for junior doctors can improve performance in cognitive assessment of older people.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ quality improvement reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26732085) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 21 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Sangha, S., George, J., Winthrop, C., & Panchal, S. (2015). Confusion: delirium and dementia - a smartphone app to improve cognitive assessment. BMJ quality improvement reports. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u202580.w1592
Vancouver
Sangha S, George J, Winthrop C, Panchal S. Confusion: delirium and dementia - a smartphone app to improve cognitive assessment. BMJ quality improvement reports. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjquality.u202580.w1592. PMID: 26732085.
BibTeX
@article{sangha2015-26732085,
author = {Sangha, Selina and George, J and Winthrop, Craig and Panchal, Sonia},
title = {{Confusion: delirium and dementia - a smartphone app to improve cognitive assessment}},
journal = {BMJ quality improvement reports},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1136/bmjquality.u202580.w1592},
pmid = {26732085},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u202580.w1592}
}