Cargando…

Translation and validation of the Tibetan confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no available delirium translated assessment method for 3.3 million Tibetans. This study aimed to provide a method for delirium assessment for Tibetan patients speaking this language by validating a translation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danzeng, Qu-Zhen, Cui, Na, Wang, Hao, Pan, Wen-Jun, Long, Yun, Deji, Yang-Zong, Ze, Cheng, Ren, Zeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511416/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30829717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000168
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: At present, there is no available delirium translated assessment method for 3.3 million Tibetans. This study aimed to provide a method for delirium assessment for Tibetan patients speaking this language by validating a translation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). METHODS: The study was conducted between July 2018 and November 2018. Patients were screened for delirium by a neurologist using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV). Patients were subsequently screened by two nurses using Tibetan translations of the CAM-ICU. With DSM-IV criterion as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the validity of the CAM-ICU criterion. Interrater reliability was determined by comparing the CAM-ICU ratings of nurse 1 vs. nurse 2 using the κ coefficient. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were assessed independently by two nurses and one neurologist. According to DSM-IV standard, 42 out of 96 (43.8%) patients developed delirium. The sensitivities of Tibetan CAM-ICU were 90.5% for nurse 1 and 92.9% for nurse 2, respectively. Their specificities were 85.2% and 90.7%, respectively. The PPV were 82.6% for nurse 1 and 88.6% for nurse 2. Their NPV were 92.0% and 94.2%, respectively. The Tibetan CAM-ICU was done with good interrater reliability between nurse 1 and nurse 2 (κ = 0.91, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Tibetan CAM-ICU shows good validity and might be incorporated into clinical practice in Tibetan Intensive Care Units. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRY: www.chictr.org.cn (No. ChiCTR1800018231)