Background/Objectives: To describe the design, procedures, and cohort for the Better ASsessment of ILlness -(BASIL) study, which is conducted to develop and test new delirium severity measures, compare them with existing measures, and examine related clinical outcomes. Methods: Prospective cohort study with 1 year follow-up of study participants at a large teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. After brief cognitive testing and the Delirium Symptom Interview, delirium and delirium severity were rated daily in the hospital using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-Severity score, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). Other key study variables included comorbidity, physical function (basic and instrumental activities of daily living [ADL]), ratings of subjective health and well-being, and clinical outcomes (length of stay, 30 day rehospitalization, nursing home admission, healthcare utilization). Follow-up interviews occurred at 1- and 12-month with patients and families. In 42 patient interviews, inter-rater reliability for key variables was assessed. Results: Of 768 eligible patients approached, 469 were screened and 352 enrolled, yielding an overall study response rate of 67% for potentially eligible participants. The mean participant was 80.3 years old (SD 6.8) and 203 (58%) were female. The majority of patients were medically complex with Charlson Comorbidity Scores ≥2 (192 patients, 55%), and 102 (29%) met criteria for dementia. Inter-rater reliability assessments (n = 42 pairs) were high for overall ratings of presence or absence of delirium by CAM (κ = 1.0), delirium severity by DRS-R-98 and MDAS (weighted kappa, κ = 1.0 for each) and for ADL impairment (κ = 1.0). For eligible participants at each time point, 278 out of 308 (90%) completed the 1-month follow-up and 132 out of 256 (53%) have completed the 12-month follow-up to date, which is still in progress. Among those who completed interviews, there was only 1–3% missing data on most major outcomes (delirium, basic ADL, and readmission). Conclusion: The BASIL study presents an innovative effort to advance the conceptualization and measurement of delirium severity. Unique strengths include the diverse cohort with complete high quality data and longitudinal follow-up, along with detailed collection of multiple delirium measures daily during hospitalization.

Keywords:
Delirium, Delirium severity rating, Study design, Cohort description, Methods, Data quality
1.
Inouye SK, Westendorp RG, Saczynski JS: Delirium in elderly people. Lancet 2014; 383: 911–922.
2.
Leslie DL, Inouye SK: The importance of -delirium: economic and societal costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011; 59(suppl 2):S241–S243.
3.
Leslie DL, Marcantonio ER, Zhang Y, Leo-Summers L, Inouye SK: One-year health care costs associated with delirium in the elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 27–32.
4.
Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al: The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160: 526–533.
5.
Trzepacz PT, Mittal D, Torres R, Kanary K, Norton J, Jimerson N: Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2001; 13: 229–242.
6.
Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, Smith MJ, Cohen K, Passik S: The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997; 13: 128–137.
7.
Oh ES, Fong TG, Hshieh TT, Inouye SK: Delirium in older persons: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA 2017; 318: 1161–1174.
8.
Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, Resnick NM: Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 850–857.
9.
Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, Resnick NM: Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 516–522.
10.
Adamis D, Sharma N, Whelan PJ, Macdonald AJ: Delirium scales: a review of current evidence. Aging Ment Health 2010; 14: 543–555.
11.
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips N, Chertkow H: Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a population-based sample. Neurology 2012; 78: 765–766.
12.
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, et al: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 695–699.
13.
Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI: Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 941–948.
14.
Wei LA, Fearing MA, Sternberg EJ, Inouye SK: The confusion assessment method: a systematic review of current usage. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 823–830.
15.
Jorm AF: A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 145–153.
16.
Jorm AF: The Informant Questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): a review. Int Psychogeriatr 2004; 16: 275–293.
17.
Jorm AF, Scott R, Cullen JS, MacKinnon AJ: Performance of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) as a screening test for dementia. Psychol Med 1991; 21: 785–790.
18.
Steis MR, Evans L, Hirschman KB, et al: Screening for delirium using family caregivers: convergent validity of the Family Confusion Assessment Method and interviewer-rated Confusion Assessment Method. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60: 2121–2126.
19.
McCusker J, Cole MG, Dendukuri N, Belzile E: The delirium index, a measure of the severity of delirium: new findings on reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1744–1749.
20.
Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW: Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–919.
21.
Lawton MP, Brody EM: Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179–186.
22.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.
23.
Gross AL, Jones RN, Habtemariam DA, et al: Delirium and long-term cognitive trajectory among persons with dementia. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 1324–1331.
24.
Pisani MA, Albuquerque A, Marcantonio ER, et al: Association between hospital readmission and acute and sustained delays in functional recovery during 18 months after elective surgery: the successful aging after elective surgery study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017; 65: 51–58.
25.
Gershon RC, Lai JS, Bode R, et al: Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Qual Life Res 2012; 21: 475–486.
26.
Cella D, Lai JS, Nowinski CJ, et al: Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology 2012; 78: 1860–1867.
27.
Foa EB: Psychosocial therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67(suppl 2): 40–45.
28.
Foa EB, McLean CP, Zang Y, et al: Psychometric properties of the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5 (PDS-5). Psychol Assess 2016; 28: 1166–1171.
29.
Schmitt EM, Marcantonio ER, Alsop DC, et al: Novel risk markers and long-term outcomes of delirium: the successful aging after elective surgery (SAGES) study design and methods. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012; 13: 818 e811–e810.
30.
Schmitt EM, Saczynski JS, Kosar CM, et al: The successful aging after elective surgery (SAGES) study: cohort description and data quality procedures. J Am Geriatr Soc 2015; 63: 2463–2471.
31.
D’Hoore W, Sicotte C, Tilquin C: Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods Inf Med 1993; 32: 382–387.
32.
LeGall JR, Loirat P, Alperovitch A: APACHE II – a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1986; 14: 754–755.
33.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42: 377–381.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.