The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. `Strict’ and `relaxed’ DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more `relaxed’ approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.

Background:There are still substantial uncertainties over best practice in delirium care. The European Delirium Association (EDA) conducted a survey of its members and other interested parties on various aspects of delirium care.Methods:The invitation to participate in the online survey was distributed among the EDA membership. The survey covered assessment, treatment of hyperactive and hypoactive delirium, and organizational management.Results:A total of 200 responses were collected (United Kingdom 28.6%, Netherlands 25.3%, Italy 15%, Switzerland 9.7%, Germany 7.1%, Spain 3.8%, Portugal 2.5%, Ireland 2.5%, Sweden 0.6%, Denmark 0.6%, Austria 0.6%, and others 3.2%). Most of the responders were doctors (80%), working in geriatrics (45%) or internal medicine (14%). Ninety-two per cent of the responders assessed patients for delirium daily. The most commonly used assessment tools were the Confusion Assessment Method (52%) and the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (30%). The first-line choice in the management of hyperactive delirium was a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches (61%). Conversely, non-pharmacological management was the first-line choice in hypoactive delirium (67%). Delirium awareness (34%), knowledge (33%), and lack of education (13%) were the most commonly reported barriers to improving the detection of delirium. Interestingly, 63% of the responders referred patients after an episode of delirium to a follow-up clinic.Conclusions:This is the first systematic survey involving an international group of specialists in delirium. Several areas of lack of consensus were found. These results emphasise the importance of further research to improve care of this major unmet medical need.

Delirium in emergency department (ED) patients occurs frequently and often remains unrecognized. Most instruments for delirium detection are complex and therefore unfeasible for the ED. The aims of this pilot study were first, to confirm our hypothesis that there is an unmet need for formal delirium assessment by comparing informal delirium ratings of ED staff with formal delirium assessments performed by trained research assistants. Second, to test the feasibility of an algorithm for delirium screening, detection and management, which includes the newly developed modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED) at the ED bedside. Third, to test interrater reliability of the mCAM-ED.

Detecting delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) can be challenging because assessment partly relies on cognitive tests that may be abnormal in both conditions. We hypothesized that a combined arousal and attention testing procedure would accurately detect DSD. Patients aged ≥70 years were recruited from five hospitals across Europe. Delirium was diagnosed by physicians using DSM-5 criteria using information from nurses, carers, and medical records. Dementia was ascertained by the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Arousal was measured using the Observational Scale of Level of Arousal (OSLA), which assesses eye opening, eye contact, posture, movement, and communication. Attention was measured by participants signaling each time an “A” was heard when “S-A-V-E-A-H-A-A-R-T” was read out. The sample included 114 persons (mean age 82 years (SD 7); 54% women). Dementia alone was present in 25% (n = 28), delirium alone in 18% (n = 21), DSD in 27% (n = 31), and neither in 30% (n = 34). Arousal and attention was assessed in n = 109 (96%). Using OSLA, 83% participants were correctly identified as having delirium (sensitivity 85%, specificity 82%, AUROC 0.92). The attention task correctly classified 76% of participants with delirium (sensitivity 90%, specificity 64%, AUROC 0.80). Combining scores correctly classified 91% of participants with delirium (sensitivity 84%, specificity 92%, AUROC 0.94). Diagnostic accuracy remained high in the subgroup with dementia (93% correctly classified, sensitivity 94%, specificity 92%, AUROC 0.98). This combined arousal–attention assessment to detect DSD was brief yet had high diagnostic accuracy. Such an approach could have clinical utility for diagnosing DSD.