Table 3.

Patients’ clinical diagnosis and simple orientation questions

Measurement	ICU delirium tools		Patients’ clinician diagnosisa			3 Simple orientation questions
	CAM-ICU	ICDSC	Physician	Resident	Nurse	1 false or absent response	2 false or absent responses	1 false responseb	2 false responsesb
Sensitivity	83% [71–94]	83% [71–94]	79% [65–94]	68% [52–83]	70% [54–86]	90% [81–99]	68% [54–83]	78% [59–97]	28% [7–48]
Specificity	100% [100–100]	87% [78–95]	85% [75–96]	93% [86–100]	89% [82–97]	66% [54–77]	82% [73–91]	73% [62–85]	92% [85–99]
PPV	100% [100–100]	79% [67–91]	79% [65–94]	85% [72–99]	78% [62–93]	62% [49–74]	70% [56–84]	47% [29–65]	50% [19–81]
NPV	91% [84–97]	89% [82–97]	85% [75–96]	82% [72–92]	85% [76–94]	92% [84–99]	81% [72–90]	92% [84–99]	81% [72–90]
Delirium diagnosis by non experts	31%	40%	41%	31%	31%	56%	37%	38%	13%
by experts	38%	38%	41%	39%	34%	38%	38%	21%	21%
Agreement with experts (κ ± SD)c	0.86 ± 0.05	0.69 ± 0.07	0.65 ± 0.09	0.63 ± 0.09	0.61 ± 0.09	0.51 ± 0.08	0.51 ± 0.09	0.41 ± 0.10	0.23 ± 0.13

The statistical measurement of performance is expressed as the percentage and its 95% confidence interval. CAM-ICU Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, ICDSC Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value

^aAmong the 108 patients included for analysis, patients’ clinicians were available upon study completion for 91 patient nurses (84%), 89 patient residents (82%) and 71 patient physicians (66%). Among the clinicians participating in the study, the 4 nurses, 1 resident and 1 physician who could not answer the question whether the patient was or was not delirious were not taken into account for the analysis

^bAnalysis was performed among the 78 patients (72%) who were able to answer all three simple questions

^cThe agreement between each method of delirium diagnosis and the assessment by the neuropsychological experts using DSM-5 criteria (reference standard) was measured using kappa coefficients