A comparison of the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care cohort with DSM–IV delirium. Issue 4 (3rd July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Sullivan, Roisin; Meagher, David; Leonard, Maeve; Watne, Leiv Otto; Hall, Roanna J; Maclullich, Alasdair M.J.; Trzepacz, Paula; Adamis, Dimitrios
• Is Part Of: Palliative & supportive care. Volume 13:Issue 4(2015)
• Page Start: 937
• Page End: 944
• Publication Date: 2014-07-03
• Subjects: Palliative treatment -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 616.029
• DOI: 10.1017/S1478951514000613
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1478-9515

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="normal"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="sec1"> <title>Objective:</title> <p>Assessment of delirium is performed with a variety of instruments, making comparisons between studies difficult. A conversion rule between commonly used instruments would aid such comparisons. The present study aimed to compare the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care population and derive conversion rules between the two scales.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec2"> <title>Method:</title> <p>Both instruments were employed to assess 77 consecutive patients with DSM–IV delirium, and the measures were repeated at three-day intervals. Conversion rules were derived from the data at initial assessment and tested on subsequent data.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec3"> <title>Results:</title> <p>There was substantial overall agreement between the two scales [concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.70 (<italic>CI</italic><sub>95</sub> = 0.60–0.78)] and between most common items (weighted κ ranging from 0.63 to 0.86). Although the two scales overlap considerably, there were some subtle differences with only modest agreement between the attention (weighted κ = 0.42) and thought process (weighted κ = 0.61) items. The conversion rule from total MDAS score to DRS–R98 severity scores demonstrated an almost perfect level of agreement (<italic>r</italic> = 0.86, CCC = 0.86; <italic>CI</italic><sub>95</sub> = 0.79–0.91), similar to the conversion rule from DRS–R98 to MDAS.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec4"> <title>Significance of results:</title> <p>Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.</p> </sec> </abstract>