BackgroundWe propose the use of serious games to screen for abnormal cognitive status in situations where it may be too costly or impractical to use standard cognitive assessments (eg, emergency departments). If validated, serious games in health care could enable broader availability of efficient and engaging cognitive screening.ObjectiveThe objective of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of a game-based cognitive assessment delivered on tablet technology to a clinical sample and to conduct preliminary validation against standard mental status tools commonly used in elderly populations.MethodsWe carried out a feasibility study in a hospital emergency department to evaluate the use of a serious game by elderly adults (N=146; age: mean 80.59, SD 6.00, range 70-94 years). We correlated game performance against a number of standard assessments, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).ResultsAfter a series of modifications, the game could be used by a wide range of elderly patients in the emergency department demonstrating its feasibility for use with these users. Of 146 patients, 141 (96.6%) consented to participate and played our serious game. Refusals to play the game were typically due to concerns of family members rather than unwillingness of the patient to play the game. Performance on the serious game correlated significantly with the MoCA (r=–.339, P <.001) and MMSE (r=–.558, P <.001), and correlated (point-biserial correlation) with the CAM (r=.565, P <.001) and with other cognitive assessments.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates the feasibility of using serious games in a clinical setting. Further research is required to demonstrate the validity and reliability of game-based assessments for clinical decision making.

No abstract

Introduction: Cognitive screening in settings such as emergency departments (ED) is frequently carried out using paper-and-pencil tests that require administration by trained staff. These assessments often compete with other clinical duties and thus may not be routinely administered in these busy settings. Literature has shown that the presence of cognitive impairments such as dementia and delirium are often missed in older ED patients. Failure to recognize delirium can have devastating consequences including increased mortality (Kakuma et al., 2003). Given the demands on emergency staff, an automated cognitive test to screen for delirium onset could be a valuable tool to support delirium prevention and management. In earlier research we examined the concurrent validity of a serious game, and carried out an initial assessment of its potential as a delirium screening tool (Tong et al., 2016). In this paper, we examine the test-retest reliability of the game, as it is an important criterion in a cognitive test for detecting risk of delirium onset.Objective: To demonstrate the test-retest reliability of the screening tool over time in a clinical sample of older emergency patients. A secondary objective is to assess whether there are practice effects that might make game performance unstable over repeated presentations.Materials and Methods: Adults over the age of 70 were recruited from a hospital ED. Each patient played our serious game in an initial session soon after they arrived in the ED, and in follow up sessions conducted at 8-h intervals (for each participant there were up to five follow up sessions, depending on how long the person stayed in the ED).Results: A total of 114 adults (61 females, 53 males) between the ages of 70 and 104 years (M = 81 years, SD = 7) participated in our study after screening out delirious patients. We observed a test-retest reliability of the serious game (as assessed by correlation r-values) between 0.5 and 0.8 across adjacent sessions.Conclusion: The game-based assessment for cognitive screening has relatively strong test-retest reliability and little evidence of practice effects among elderly emergency patients, and may be a useful supplement to existing cognitive assessment methods.

Background Retrospective studies estimate Emergency Department (ED) delirium recognition at &lt;20%; few prospective studies have assessed delirium recognition and outcomes for patients with unrecognized delirium. Objectives To prospectively measure delirium recognition by ED nurses and physicians, document their confidence in diagnosis and disposition, actual dispositions, and patient outcomes. Methods Prospective observational study of people ≥65 years. We assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method, then asked ED staff if the patient had delirium, confidence in their assessment, if the patient could be discharged, and contacted patients 1 week postdischarge. We report proportions and 95% confidence intervals (Cls). Results We enrolled 1,493 participants; mean age was 77.9 years; 49.2% were female, 79 (5.3%, 95% CI 4.2–6.5%) had delirium. ED nurses missed delirium in 43/78 cases (55.1%, 95% CI 43.4–66.4%). Nurses considered 12/43 (27.9%) patients with unrecognized delirium safe to discharge. Median confidence in their delirium diagnosis for patients with unrecognized delirium was 7.0/10. Physicians missed delirium in 10/20 (50.0%, 95% CI 27.2–72.8) cases and considered 2/10 (20.0%) safe to discharge. Median confidence in their delirium diagnosis for patients with unrecognized delirium was 8.0/10. Fifteen patients with unrecognized delirium were sent home: 6.7% died at 1 week follow-up vs. none in those with recognized delirium and 1.1% in the rest of the cohort. Conclusion Delirium recognition by nurses and physicians was sub-optimal at ~50% and may be associated with increased mortality. Research should explore root causes of unrecognized delirium, and novel strategies to systematically improve delirium recognition and patient outcomes.

No abstract