ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1154-9037
Current Organisation
University of Southampton
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 09-2010
Abstract: In this study we address the research question How sensitive is a single question in delirium case finding? Of 33 ‘target’ admissions, consent was obtained from 21 patients. The single question: ‘Do you think [name of patient] has been more confused lately?’ was put to friend or family. Results of the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD) were compared to psychiatrist interview (ΨI) which was the reference standard. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and two other tools were also applied. Compared with ΨI, the SQiD achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 80% (95% CI 28.3—99.49%) and 71% (41.90—91.61%) respectively. The CAM demonstrated a negative predictive value (NPV) of 80% (51.91—95.67%) and the SQiD showed a NPV of 91% (58.72—99.77%). Kappa correlation of SQiD with the ΨI was 0.431 (p = 0.023). The CAM had a kappa value of 0.37 (p = 0.050). A further important finding in our study was that the CAM had only 40% sensitivity in the hands of minimally trained clinical users. Conclusion: The SQiD demonstrates potential as a simple clinical tool worthy or further investigation.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-01-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12885-020-07504-X
Abstract: A serious syndrome for cancer in-patients, delirium risk increases with age and medical acuity. Screening tools exist but detection is frequently delayed or missed. We test the ‘Single Question in Delirium’ (SQiD), in comparison to psychiatrist clinical interview. Inpatients in two comprehensive cancer centres were prospectively screened. Clinical staff asked informants to respond to the SQiD: “Do you feel that [patient’s name] has been more confused lately?”. The primary endpoint was negative predictive value (NPV) of the SQiD versus psychiatrist diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual criteria). Secondary endpoints included: NPV of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Between May 2012 and July 2015, the SQiD plus CAM was applied to 122 patients 73 had the SQiD and psychiatrist interview. Median age was 65 yrs. (interquartile range 54–74), 46% were female median length of hospital stay was 12 days (5–18 days). Major cancer types were lung (19%), gastric or other upper GI (15%) and breast (14%). 70% of participants had stage 4 cancer. Diagnostic values were similar between the SQiD (NPV = 74, 95% CI 67–81 kappa = 0.32) and CAM (NPV = 72, 95% CI 67–77, kappa = 0.32), compared with psychiatrist interview. Overall the CAM identified only a small number of delirious cases but all were true positives. The specificity of the SQiD was 87% (74–95) The SQiD had higher sensitivity than CAM (44% [95% CI 41–80] vs 26% [10–48]). The SQiD, administered by bedside clinical staff, was feasible and its psychometric properties are now better understood. The SQiD can contribute to delirium detection and clinical care for hospitalised cancer patients.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-01-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S41999-021-00586-1
Abstract: Delirium leads to poor outcomes for patients and careers and has negative impacts on staff and service provision. Cancer rates in elderly populations are increasing and frequently, cancer diagnoses are a co-morbidity in the context of frailty. Data relating to the epidemiology of delirium in hospitalised cancer patients are limited. With the overarching purpose of improving delirium detection and reducing the morbidity and mortality of delirium in cancer patients, we reviewed the epidemiological data and approach to delirium detection in hospitalised, adult oncology patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched from January 1996 to August 2017. Key concepts were delirium, cancer, inpatient oncology and delirium screening/detection. Of 896 unique studies identified 91 met full-text review criteria. Of 12 eligible studies, four applied recommended case ascertainment methods to all patients, three used delirium screening tools alone or with case ascertainment tools sub-optimally applied, four used tools not recommended for delirium screening or case ascertainment, one used the Confusion Assessment Method with insufficient information to determine if it met case ascertainment status. Two studies presented delirium incidence rates: 7.8%, and 17% respectively. Prevalence rates ranged from 18–33% for general medical or oncology wards 42–58% for Acute Palliative Care Units (APCU) and for older cancer patients: 22% and 57%. Three studies reported reversibility 26% and 49% respectively (APCUs) and 30% (older patients with cancer). Six studies had a low risk of bias according to QUADAS-2 criteria all studies in the APCU setting were rated at higher risk of bias. Tool selection, study flow and recruitment bias reduced study quality. The knowledge base for improved interventions and clinical care for adults with cancer and delirium is limited by the low number of studies. A clear distinction between screening tools and diagnostic tools is required to provide an improved understanding of the rates of delirium and its reversibility in this population.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-09-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ALL.15084
Abstract: The aim of this survey was to explore the specific educational needs of a cohort of European GPs with regards to allergy training so that future educational initiatives may better support the delivery of allergy services in primary care. Method: This study took the form of a cross‐sectional observational study in which a structured electronic questionnaire was distributed to primary care providers, in eight languages, across 8 European countries between September 2019 and November 2019. Data associated with demographic parameters, professional qualifications, type of employment, level of confidence regarding competencies for diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases, referral of patients to allergist and preferred method of learning and assessment were collected. A 5‐point Likert scale was used to assess level of confidence. Exploratory analysis was carried out. Results: A total of 687 responses were available for analysis, with 99.3% of responders working within Europe. 70.1% of participants were female and 48.0% and 48.0% of participants respectively had received some undergraduate and/or postgraduate allergy education. Confidence in dealing with different aspect of allergy management differed between countries. The main reason for specialist referral was a perceived need for tertiary assessment (54.3%), and the main barrier for referral was the consideration that the patient's condition could be appropriately diagnosed and treated in a primary care facility. Up to 44.7% and 55.3% of participants reported that they preferred e‐Learning over traditional learning. Conclusions: This study identified the specific areas of skills training and educational needs of GPs in managing allergic conditions in primary care, and provided insights into possible strategies for more feasible and cost‐effective approaches.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Megan Bernice Sands.