Aim: Impaired attention is a core diagnostic feature for delirium. The present study examined the discriminating properties for patients with delirium versus those with dementia and/or no neurocognitive disorder of four objective tests of attention: digit span, vigilance "A" test, serial 7s subtraction and months of the year backwards together with global clinical subjective rating of attention.Methods: This as a prospective study of older patients admitted consecutively in a general hospital. Participants were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Rating Scale-98 Revised and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scales, and months of the year backwards. Pre-existing dementia was diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition criteria. Results:The sample consisted of 200 participants (mean age 81.1 ± 6.5 years; 50% women; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 126 [63%]). A total of 34 (17%) were identified with delirium (Confusion Assessment Method +). The five approaches to assessing attention had statistically significant correlations (P < 0.05). Discriminant analysis showed that clinical subjective rating of attention in conjunction with the months of the year backwards had the best discriminatory ability to identify Confusion Assessment Method-defined delirium, and to discriminate patients with delirium from those with dementia and/or normal cognition. Both of these approaches had high sensitivity, but modest specificity. Conclusion:Objective tests are useful for prediction of non-delirium, but lack specificity for a delirium diagnosis. Global attentional deficits were more indicative of delirium than deficits of specific domains of attention. Geriatr

AIMTo explore the agreement between the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) within community dwelling older patients attending an old age psychiatry service and to derive and test a conversion formula between the two scales.METHODSProspective study of consecutive patients attending outpatient services. Both tests were administered by the same researcher on the same day in random order.RESULTSThe total sample (n = 135) was randomly divided into two groups. One to derive a conversion rule (n = 70), and a second (n = 65) in which this rule was tested. The agreement (Pearson’s r) of MMSE and MoCA was 0.86 (P < 0.001), and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.45-0.66). In the second sample MoCA scores were converted to MMSE scores according to a conversion rule from the first sample which achieved agreement with the original MMSE scores of 0.89 (Pearson’s r, P < 0.001) and CCC of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.92).CONCLUSIONAlthough the two scales overlap considerably, the agreement is modest. The conversion rule derived herein demonstrated promising accuracy and warrants further testing in other populations.

CDT score reflects cognitive impairment, independently of the presence or severity of delirium. The CDT is not a suitable test for delirium in hospitalised elderly patients.

This preliminary study suggests the possibility of relatively higher rates of ADHD in a general AMHS than previously thought, however, given the possibility of overlapping symptoms with other major psychiatric disorders in adulthood and recall bias further research is needed before drawing firm conclusions.

Objectives:With the shift from deinstitutionalization to community care in mental health services, relatives of persons with severe and enduring mental illnesses have had to take over the role as primary caregivers. Disturbed family dynamics have been observed within families with an ‘ill’ member. Although schizophrenia and related mental illnesses are biologically based disorders, environmental stress (including stress within family relationships) plays a major role in the onset and maintenance of symptoms. With this study, we assume that family dynamics play a central role in the course of severe psychiatric illness and hypothesized that dysfunction within family systems is a prognostic indicator of hospitalization in the course of schizophrenia/bipolar and schizoaffective disorders.Methods:Prospective, observational cohort study evaluating family functioning of 121 patients (schizophrenia/bipolar and schizoaffective disorder) from community at baseline and followed-up over 12-month period after recruitment. Measurements included demographics, diagnosis, Family Assessment Device – General Functioning, Perceived Criticism Scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning and Social Support Questionnaire-6.Results:Significant differences found between patients admitted and not admitted during the 12-month time period for age (p = 0.003), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS; p = 0.026), Family Assessment Device – General Functioning (FAD-GF; p = 0.007) and Social Support Questionnaire total satisfaction level (p = 0.042) at baseline. Bivariate analysis showed that those admitted into hospital were younger with a higher BPRS score, less social satisfaction and disturbed family dynamics. FAD-GF (p = 0.006) and age (p = 0.022) were significant independent predictors for admission.Conclusion:This provides further evidence supporting importance of promoting better family functioning through modified family dynamics, integrating and involving family into the care of such patients.

No abstract

Introduction: The recent DSM-5 criteria for delirium can lead to different rates of delirium and different case identification. Aims: The aims of this study were to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria might differ from the previous DSM-IV in detecting rates of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, including the DSM III, DSM III-R, DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. Methods: Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, CAM and MoCA scales. Results: The studied sample included 200 patients. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic system/scale were respectively for DSM-5 n=26 (13.0%), DSM-IV n=39 (19.5%), DRS-R98 n=27 (13.5%) and for CAM n=34 (17.0%). Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (rho tetr =0.64, SE= 0.1, p<0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods. Conclusions: DSM-IV identifies more delirium cases compared to any other method and DSM-5 is the more restrictive. These classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial and research implications. However, both classification systems (and their antecedents) have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also has implications for prediction of outcomes, further research looking at outcomes could assist a more in depth evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.

No abstract