Validation study of a delirium detection tool completed by families

Recruiting

• Conditions: Delirium; Mental and Behavioural Disorders; Delirium, unspecified

• Registration Number: ISRCTN56463078
• Lead Sponsor: Montreal Heart Institute Research Center

Brief Summary

Not available

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Results First Posted: 1900-01-01
• Study Start: 2018-06-01
• Last Update Posted: 11 February 2019
• Study Completion: 2019-06-15

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 100

Inclusion Criteria

1. The family caregiver had to identify as a family caregiver (spouse, child, other family, friend) of an inpatient
2. Report having regular contact before hospitalization (= once a week). In the literature, this frequency of interaction was considered sufficient for the family member to report the usual cognitive and functional state of the patient, a knowledge necessary to be able to identify changes (Martins et al., 2014; Steis et al., 2012)
3. Have visited the patient at the hospital at least twice
4. Have the capacity to provide informed consent
5. 18 years old or older
6. Understand and read French
7. The hospitalized patient had to have the ability to provide informed consent or have a legal representative if their cognitive functioning was altered and present a stable clinical condition, allowing the evaluation of delirium using a questionnaire such as FAMCAM

Exclusion Criteria

Does not meet inclusion criteria

Study & Design

• Study Type: Observational
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
The sensitivity and specificity of the French FAM-CAM compared with the reference standard (medical diagnosis according to DSM-5 criteria)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
<br> 1. The sensitivity and specificity of the French FAM-CAM compared with delirium defined from a set of keywords associated with delirium (encephalopathy, confusion, agitation, hallucination, somnolence, haldol [Puelle et al., 2015]) and with scores on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)<br> 2. The FAMCAM’s predictive value compared with the reference standard using a ROC curve<br> 3. The reliability of the FAM-CAM compared with the CAM<br>