Browsing by Author "Grover, Sandeep"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
    (BioMed Central, 2014-09-30) Meagher, David J.; Morandi, Alessandro; Inouye, Sharon K.; Ely, Wes; Adamis, Dimitrios; Maclullich, Alasdair J.; Rudolph, James L.; Neufeld, Karin; Leonard, Maeve; Bellelli, Giuseppe; Davis, Daniel; Teodorczuk, Andrew; Kreisel, Stefan; Thomas, Christine; Hasemann, Wolfgang; Timmons, Suzanne; O’Regan, Niamh; Grover, Sandeep; Jabbar, Faiza; Cullen, Walter; Dunne, Colum; Kamholz, Barbara; Van Munster, Barbara C.; De Rooij, Sophia E.; De Jonghe, Jos; Trzepacz, Paula T.; Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How do delirium motor subtypes differ in phenomenology and contributory aetiology? a cross-sectional, multisite study of liaison psychiatry and palliative care patients
    (BMJ, 2021-04-14) Glynn, Kevin; McKenna, Frank; Lally, Kevin; O’Donnell, Muireann; Grover, Sandeep; Chakrabarti, Subho; Avasthi, Ajit; Mattoo, Surendra K.; Sharma, Akhilesh; Ghosh, Abhishek; Shah, Ruchita; Hickey, David; Fitzgerald, James; Davis, Brid; O'Regan, Niamh; Adamis, Dimitrious; Williams, Olugbenja; Awan, Fahad; Dunne, C.; Cullen, Walter; McInerney, Shane; McFarland, John; Jabbar, Faiza; O'Connell, Henry; Trzepacz, Paula T.; Leonard, Maeve; Meagher, David; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Objectives: To investigate whether delirium motor subtypes differ in terms of phenomenology and contributory aetiology. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: International study incorporating data from Ireland and India across palliative care, old age liaison psychiatry and general adult liaison psychiatry settings. Participants: 1757 patients diagnosed with delirium using criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth edition (DSM IV). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Hyperactive, mixed and hypoactive delirium subtypes were identified using the abbreviated version of the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale. Phenomenology was assessed using the Delirium Rating Scale Revised. Contributory aetiologies were assessed using the Delirium Aetiology Checklist (DEC), with a score >2 indicating that the aetiology was likely or definitely contributory. Results: Hypoactive delirium was associated with dementia, cerebrovascular and systemic infection aetiologies (p<0.001) and had a lower overall burden of delirium symptoms than the other motor subtypes. Hyperactive delirium was associated with younger age, drug withdrawal and the DEC category other systemic aetiologies (p<0.001). Mixed delirium showed the greatest symptom burden and was more often associated with drug intoxication and metabolic disturbance (p<0.001). All three delirium motor subtypes had similar levels of impairment in attention and visuospatial functioning but differed significantly when compared with no subtype (p<0.001). Conclusions: This study indicates a pattern of aetiology and symptomatology of delirium motor subtypes across a large international sample that had previously been lacking. It serves to improve our understanding of this complex condition and has implications in terms of early detection and management of delirium.