Home › Research › End-of-life care
Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study
Voyer P, Champoux N, Desrosiers J, Landreville P, McCusker J, Monette J, Savoie M, Richard S et al.. BMC nursing, 2015-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Although detection of delirium using the current tools is excellent in research settings, in routine clinical practice, this is not the case. Together with nursing staff, we developed a screening tool (RADAR) to address certain limitations of existing tools, notably administration time, ease-of-use and generalizability. The purpose of this study was not only to evaluate the validity and reliability of RADAR but also to gauge its acceptability among the nursing staff in two different clinical settings. Methods This was a validation study conducted on three units of an acute care hospital (medical, cardiology and coronary care) and five units of a long-term care facility. A total of 142 patients and 51 residents aged 65 and over, with or without dementia, participated in the study and 139 nurses were recruited and trained to use the RADAR tool. Data on each patient/resident was collected over a 12-hour period. The nursing staff and researchers administered RADAR during the scheduled distribution of medication. Researchers used the Confusion Assessment Method to determine the presence of delirium symptoms. Delirium itself was defined as meeting the criteria for DMS-IV-TR delirium. Inter-rater reliability, convergent, and concurrent validity of RADAR were assessed. At study end, 103 (74%) members of the nursing staff completed the RADAR feasibility and acceptability questionnaire. Results Percentages of agreement between RADAR items that bedside nurses administered and those research assistants administered varied from 82% to 98%. When compared with DSM-IV-TR criterion-defined delirium, RADAR had a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 67%. Participating nursing staff took about seven seconds on average, to complete the tool and it was very well received (≥98%) overall. Conclusions The RADAR tool proved to be efficient, reliable, sensitive and very well accepted by nursing staff. Consequently, it becomes an appropriate new option for delirium screening among older adults, with or without cognitive impairment, in both hospitals and nursing homes. Further projects are currently underway to validate the RADAR among middle-aged adults, as well as in newer clinical settings; home care, emergency department, medical intensive care unit, and palliative care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Voyer, P., Champoux, N., Desrosiers, J., Landreville, P., McCusker, J., Monette, J., et al. (2015). Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study. BMC nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0070-1
Vancouver
Voyer P, Champoux N, Desrosiers J, Landreville P, McCusker J, Monette J, et al. Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study. BMC nursing. 2015. doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0070-1. PMID: 25844067.
BibTeX
@article{voyer2015-25844067,
author = {Voyer, P. and Champoux, N. and Desrosiers, J. and Landreville, P. and McCusker, J. and Monette, J. and Savoie, M. and Richard, S. and others},
title = {{Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study}},
journal = {BMC nursing},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1186/s12912-015-0070-1},
pmid = {25844067},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0070-1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Percentages of agreement between RADAR items that bedside nurses administered and those research assistants administered varied from 82% to 98%.
- When compared with DSM-IV-TR criterion-defined delirium, RADAR had a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 67%.
- Participating nursing staff took about seven seconds on average, to complete the tool and it was very well received (≥98%) overall.
Study details
- Participants142
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC nursing) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 142 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 25844067) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.