Bartolacci, Manuela

Importance Validation of prognostic tools is an essential component of their integration into clinical practice. Objective To validate 4 delirium risk stratification tools in an independent emergency department (ED) cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study included a retrospective cohort of patients 65 years or older who presented to an academic ED between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2024. Data were analyzed from February 10 to August 21, 2025. Exposure Delirium screening included the Delirium Triage Screen followed by the brief Confusional Assessment Method as part of the standard of care. Four delirium risk scores were obtained, including the Kennedy rule, the Zucchelli rule, the Mayo Delirium Prediction (MDP) tools, and the Recognizing Delirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes included risk score performances and diagnostic test accuracy measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes were discriminative and calibration measures. Results A total of 44 578 patients were included, of whom 1701 (3.8%) were diagnosed with delirium. The median age was 80.0 (IQR, 75.0-85.0) years, and 22 786 patients (51.1%) were female. The Kennedy rule had an AUROC of 0.777 (95% CI, 0.766-0.789). At a cutoff of 5, sensitivity was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.52-0.57); specificity, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.85); positive LR, 3.54 (95% CI, 3.37-3.72); negative LR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.51-0.57); PPV, 0.12 (95% CI, 0.12-0.13); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The Zucchelli tool had an AUROC of 0.701 (95% CI, 0.686-0.713). At a cutoff of 5, sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.70); specificity, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.66); positive LR, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.92-2.06); negative LR, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.45-0.52); PPV, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.07-0.08); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The MDP tool had an AUROC of 0.898 (95% CI, 0.891-0.905). At a 30% cutoff, sensitivity was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.53); specificity, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.95-0.95); positive LR, 9.69 (95% CI, 9.11-10.31); negative LR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.50-0.55); PPV, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29); and NPV, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98). The REDEEM score demonstrated the highest AUROC at 0.921 (95% CI, 0.914-0.929). Using a cutoff of 11 or greater, sensitivity was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81-0.85); specificity, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.92), negative LR, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.17-0.20); positive LR, 9.91 (95% CI, 9.54-10.29); PPV, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.27-0.29); and NPV, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance In this prognostic study comparing 4 delirium tools to improve delirium detection and identify high-risk patients, the REDEEM score and the MDP tool had better performance for delirium detection in the ED. These findings lay the groundwork for integrating validated risk stratification into ED workflows to improve early delirium detection and inform prevention strategies for high-risk older adults.

ABSTRACT Background The Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) guidelines recommend screening older adults for delirium using evidence‐based screening tools, but these tools are often underutilized. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing an electronic health record (EHR)‐based delirium screening tool as intended. Methods This mixed methods and focused ethnographic study combined a review of structured delirium screening data with observations of real‐time delirium screenings and semi‐structured in‐person interviews at an academic ED that previously implemented the Delirium Triage Screen (DTS) and Brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) tool. Content analysis of field notes from observations and interview transcripts was guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment implementation framework. Results From a total of 40,818 ED visits, 6196 (15.2%) had incomplete screens (i.e., without fidelity). We observed 62 encounters, of which 25 (40.3%) screenings were implemented without fidelity due to (1) not asking the required screening questions, (2) assuming patient responses, or (3) not completing the screen due to uncertainty regarding a patient's baseline mentation. We conducted 32 interviews. Identified barriers included staff prioritization of other tasks (e.g., stroke code, cleaning patients), limited knowledge of the screen's importance and utility, and language discordance. Facilitators included care partners providing baseline mental status information and nurses prefacing the screening to increase patient engagement. Conclusion The fidelity of ED delirium screening is influenced by an interplay of environmental, patient, provider, and caregiver factors. Fidelity may be improved by focusing education on the importance of screening, training screeners on how to determine whether a patient's mentation is acutely changed, providing clear action steps when a patient screens positive, and addressing how to administer the delirium screen to patients who do not speak English fluently.