Development and validation of the Korean Nursing Delirium Scale

Abstract

Purpose: The aims of this study were to develop and test the validity of the Korean Nursing Delirium Scale (Nu-DESC) for older patients in hospital. Methods: The Korean Nu-DESC was developed based on the Nu-DESC (Gaudreau, 2005), and revised according to nursing records related to signs and symptoms of older patients with delirium (n= 361) and the results of a pilot study (n= 42) in one general hospital. To test the validity of the Korean Nu-DESC, 75 older patients whom nurses suspected of delirium from 731 older patients from 12 nursing units were assessed by bedside nurses using the Korean Nu-DESC. A Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve of the Korean Nu-DESC was constructed with an accompanying Area Under the Curve (AUC). Results: Specific examples such as irritable, kidding, sleeping tendency, which were observed by bedside nurses in Korea, were identified in the five features of signs and symptoms of delirium in the instrument. The Korean Nu-DESC was psycho-metrically valid and had a sensitivity and specificity of .81-.76 and .97-.73, respectively. The AUC were .89, .74. Conclusion: Results of this study indicate that the Korean Nu-DESC is well-suited for widespread clinical use in busy inpatients settings and shows promise as a research instrument.

Diagnostic test accuracy of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Two of the four excluded Nu‐DESC validation studies were studies using the criteria of DSM‐V as a reference standard test, but not performed or supervised by a psychiatrist or a neurologist (Abelha et al., 2013; Spedale et al., 2017). Another exclusion was due to insufficient data to derive a 2 × 2 table for evaluating Nu‐DESC test accuracy (Poikajarvi et al, 2017) and the other one used a modified, not an original, version of the Nu‐DESC (Kim, Kim, Kim, Yoo, & Park, 2012). Finally, we identified 11 articles that met our eligibility criteria, which were systematically reviewed and used in our meta‐analysis for DTA of the Nu‐DESC (Brich et al., 2018; Gaudreau et al., 2005; Hargrave et al., 2017; Heinrich et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2008; Lingehall et al., 2012; Luetz et al., 2010; Neufeld et al., 2013; Radtke et al., 2008, 2010; Saller et al., 2019).…”

Validation of the Simplified Palliative Prognostic Index to Predict Survival for Advanced Cancer Patients in Home Hospice Setting

“…Three professional hospice nurses recorded the sPPI items upon their first home visit, and the additional assessment of delirium was made according to the Korean Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Korean Nu-DESC). 20) The sPPI score was calculated using the PPS, oral intake, edema, dyspnea at rest, and CCS. The PPS was developed by modifying the Karnofsky Performance Scale and covers five aspects: ambulation, activity and evidence of disease, self-care, oral intake, and level of consciousness.…”

“…22) A score between 0 and 2 was assigned according to the degree of each item, but a study that introduced the Nu-DESC in Korea showed that there was no clear standard for determining the severity of each item. 20) Hence, it was modified to have a maximum score of 5 points. In this study, the presence of delirium was identified by a score of ≥2 points on the Korean Nu-DESC based on previous findings.…”

Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, a Tool for Early Detection of Delirium: Integrative Review

“…Its administration takes about two minutes and is accessible for clinical practice. It has been validated in different languages such as Danish (4), Turkish (5), Czech (6), and Korean (7), and used in different clinical practice scenarios: palliative care patients (8,9), cardiac surgery (10,11), liver transplantation (12), orthopedic surgery (13), urological surgery (14,15), scheduled post-operative patients (16)(17)(18)(19), post-anesthesia with medications such as ketamine (20), hospitalization (21), geriatrics hospitalization (22), oncologic hospitalization (23), and ICUs (24)(25)(26). The results of these studies report an average sensitivity of 96 % and specificity of 81 % using this scale.…”