Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Nursing and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

The Neecham Confusion Scale and the Delirium Observation Screening Scale: Capacity to discriminate and ease of use in clinical practice

Liesbeth A Gemert van* and Marieke J Schuurmans

BMC Nursing 2007, 6:3  doi:10.1186/1472-6955-6-3

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email info@biomedcentral.com, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Delirium-O-meter and Delirium Observation Scale correlations

Jos F.M. de Jonghe   (2008-01-10 10:46)  Medical Center Alkmaar email

Van Gemert and Schuurmans (2007) provide evidence supporting validity of the Delirium Observation Scale (DOS). However, two comments can be made on DOS validity; one pro and one con.

Different delirium types exist (hyperactive, hypoactive and mixed). DOS item sampling was not specifically designed to measure aspects of different delirium types, thus challenging content validity.

DOS observations (among other ratings) were used to validate nurses' delirium severity assessments based on the Delirium-O-Meter (DOM). DOS - DOM correlation was r=.89, corroborating concurrent validity of the measures (de Jonghe et al., 2005).

Rating scales aiming for accurate detection of incident delirium should include measures of hyperactive and hypoactive delirium.

Dr. Jos de Jonghe, PhD

Reference.

de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Timmers JF, Kat MG, Jackson JC. Delirium-O-Meter: a nurses' rating scale for monitoring delirium severity in geriatric patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;20 (12):1158-66.

Competing interests

none

top

Post a comment