John Young

Background: Evidence is required to guide the redesign of health care for older people who require hospital admission. Objectives: We assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of geriatrician-led admission avoidance hospital at home with comprehensive geriatric assessment, the experiences of older people and their caregivers, and how the services differed. Design: A multisite, randomised, open trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home, compared with admission to hospital, using a 2 : 1 (hospital at home to hospital) ratio, and a parallel economic and process evaluation. Participants were randomised using a secure online system. Setting: Participants were recruited from primary care or acute hospital assessment units from nine sites across the UK. Participants: Older people who required hospital admission because of an acute change in health. Intervention: Geriatrician-led admission avoidance hospital at home with comprehensive geriatric assessment. Main outcome measures: The main outcome, ‘living at home’ (the inverse of death or living in a residential care setting), was measured at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes at 6 months were the incidence of delirium, mortality, new long-term residential care, cognitive impairment, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality-adjusted survival, length of stay and transfer to hospital. Secondary outcomes at 12 months were living at home, new long-term residential care and mortality. Results: Participants were allocated to hospital at home (n = 700) or to hospital (n = 355). All reported relative risks (RRs) were adjusted and are reported for hospital at home compared with hospital. There were no significant differences between the groups in the proportions of patients ‘living at home’ at 6 months [528/672 (78.6%) vs. 247/328 (75.3%), RR 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.15; p = 0.36] or at 12 months [443/670 (66.1%) vs. 219/325 (67.4%), RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.10; p = 0.80]; mortality at 6 months [114/673 (16.9%) vs. 58/328 (17.7%), RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; p = 0.92] or at 12 months [188/670 (28.1%) vs. 82/325 (25.2%), RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.62]; the proportion of patients with cognitive impairment [273/407 (67.1%) vs. 115/183 (62.8%), RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; p = 0.36]; or in ability to perform the activities of daily living as measured by the Barthel Index (mean difference 0.24, 95% CI –0.33 to 0.80; p = 0.411; hospital at home, n = 521 patients contributed data; hospital, n = 256 patients contributed data) or Comorbidity Index (adjusted mean difference 0.0002, 95% CI –0.15 to 0.15; p = 0.10; hospital at home, n = 474 patients contributed data; hospital, n = 227 patients contributed data) at 6 months. The varying denominator reflects the number of participants who contributed data to the different outcomes. There was a significant reduction in the RR of living in residential care at 6 months [37/646 (5.7%) vs. 27/311 (8.7%), RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; p < 0.001] and 12 months [39/646 (6.0%) vs. 27/311 (8.7%), RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; p < 0.001], a significant reduction in risk of delirium at 1 month [10/602 (1.7%) vs. 13/295 (4.4%), RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76; p = 0.006] and an increased risk of transfer to hospital at 1 month [173/672 (25.7%) vs. 64/330 (19.4%), RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; p = 0.012], but not at 6 months [343/631 (54.40%) vs. 171/302 (56.6%), RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; p = 0.40]. Patient satisfaction was in favour of hospital at home. An unexpected adverse event that might have been related to the research was reported to the Research Ethics Committee. At 6 months, there was a mean difference in NHS, personal social care and informal care costs (mean difference –£3017, 95% CI –£5765 to –£269), and no difference in quality-adjusted survival. Older people and caregivers played a crucial role in supporting the delivery of health care. In hospital at home this included monitoring a patient’s health and managing transitional care arrangements. Limitations: The findings are most applicable to patients referred from an acute hospital assessment unit. Conclusions: Comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home can provide a cost-effective alternative to hospitalisation for selected older people. Further research that includes a stronger element of carer support might generate evidence to improve health outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60477865. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity.Objectives: The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams.Design: This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5).Setting: The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK.Participants: The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes.Intervention: The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines.Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5).Results: Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green).Limitations: Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial.Conclusions: A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting.Future work: The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Delirium is a distressing, common and serious condition in older people in hospital. Evidence suggests that it could be prevented in about one-third of patients using multicomponent interventions targeting delirium risk factors, but these interventions are not yet routinely available in the NHS. Objective The objective was to improve delirium prevention for older people admitted to the NHS. Design Project 1 comprised case studies employing qualitative methods (observation, interviews, workshops) in three NHS hospitals to develop the Prevention of Delirium system of care. Project 2 comprised case studies using mixed methods in five NHS hospitals to test the Prevention of Delirium implementation, feasibility and acceptability, and to modify the Prevention of Delirium system of care. Project 3 comprised a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled, pragmatic feasibility study in eight hospitals, with embedded economic evaluation, to investigate the potential clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Prevention of Delirium system of care, compared with standard care, among older patients admitted to hospital for emergency care. The primary objectives related to gathering information to design a definitive trial. Criteria for progression to a definitive trial were as follows: a minimum of six wards (75%) completing the Prevention of Delirium manual milestone checklist and an overall recruitment rate of at least 10% of the potential recruitment pool. Setting This study was set in NHS general hospitals. Participants In project 1, participants were staff, volunteers, and patient and carer representatives. In project 2, participants were staff, volunteers, patients and carers. In project 3, participants were older patients admitted to elderly care and orthopaedic trauma wards. Intervention The developed intervention (i.e. the Prevention of Delirium system of care). Main outcome measures For the feasibility study (project 3), the primary outcome measure was the Confusion Assessment Method. The secondary outcome measures were the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale, the Clinical Anxiety Scale and the Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form. Results Project 1: understanding of delirium prevention was poor. Drawing on evidence, and working with ward teams, we developed the Prevention of Delirium system of care, which targeted 10 delirium risk factors. This multicomponent intervention incorporated systems and mechanisms to introduce and embed delirium prevention into routine ward practices. Project 2: five out of six wards implemented or partially implemented the Prevention of Delirium intervention. A prominent role for hospital volunteers was intended, but most wards were unable to recruit or sustain the numbers needed. We identified four conditions necessary to implement and deliver the Prevention of Delirium intervention: (1) commitment of senior nurse, (2) a named person to drive implementation forward, (3) dedicated time (1 day per week) of an experienced nurse to lead implementation and (4) adequate ward staffing levels. Overall, the intervention was acceptable to staff, volunteers, patients and carers, and did not increase nursing staff workload. In the light of these findings, the Prevention of Delirium system of care was modified for use in project 3. Project 3: 16 wards in eight hospitals (two wards per hospital) were recruited. Out of 4449 patients screened, 3274 (73.6%) were eligible and 713 were registered, resulting in a recruitment rate of 16.0%. Thirty-three (4.6%) participants withdrew. The screened and registered participants were similar, but some between-treatment group imbalances were noted among those registered to the trial. All eight wards allocated to the intervention group completed the Prevention of Delirium manual milestone checklist and delivered the Prevention of Delirium intervention (median time 18.6 weeks for implementation). Overall, fidelity to the intervention was assessed as being high in two wards, medium in five wards and low in one ward. Of the expected 5645 Confusion Assessment Method delirium assessments, 5065 (89.7%) were completed during the first 10 days of admission. The rates of return of the patient-reported questionnaire booklets were 98.0% at baseline, 81.8% at 30 days and 70.5% at 3 months. The return rate of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire was 98.6% at baseline, 77.5% at 1 month and 65.3% at 3 months (94–98% fully completed). The completion rate of the resource use questionnaire was lower (48.7%). The number of people with new-onset delirium at 10 days was 24 (7.0%) in the Prevention of Delirium group and 33 (8.9%) in the control group. Multilevel logistic regression analysis showed that participants in the Prevention of Delirium group had non-significant lower odds of developing delirium (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.26; p = 0.2225). The average cost of the Prevention of Delirium intervention was estimated as £10.98 per patient and the mean costs for the Prevention of Delirium and usual-care groups were £5332 and £4412, respectively, with negligible between-group differences in quality-adjusted life-years. There was conflicting evidence from the trial- and model-based analyses relating to the cost-effectiveness of the Prevention of Delirium intervention. Given this, and in view of issues with the data (e.g. high levels of missingness), the results from the economic evaluation are highly uncertain. The criteria for continuation to a future definitive randomised controlled trial were met. Such a trial would need to recruit 5200 patients in 26 hospital clusters (200 patients per cluster). Conclusions The Prevention of Delirium system of care was successfully developed, and a multicentre feasibility study showed that the intervention is capable of implementation and delivery in routine care, with acceptable intervention fidelity and preliminary estimate of...

Background: It is reported that the longer-term outcomes for stroke survivors are poor, with a range of unmet needs identified. Objectives: The aims were to develop and test a longer-term stroke care strategy focused on improving the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers by addressing unmet needs, and maintenance and enhancement of participation (i.e. involvement in life situations). Design: Five overlapping workstreams were undertaken – (1) refinement of content by semistructured interviews with stroke survivors and their carers and by a review of the literature to inform content and delivery of the care strategy; (2) exploration of service models by national survey and focus groups with purposely selected services; (3) intervention development by interaction with a reference group of stroke survivors, carers, and health and social care professionals; (4) refinement and pilot implementation of the developed intervention in three stroke services (case studies); and (5) a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial in 10 stroke services across England and Wales. Setting: The intervention development work and feasibility trial were in stroke services (inclusive of primary, secondary, community and social care provision) across England and Wales. Participants: Participants were stroke survivors resident in the community and their carers, and health and social care professionals in the included stroke services. Data sources: Interviews with 28 stroke survivors and their carers at least 9 months post stroke ascertained their needs and the barriers to and facilitators of addressing those needs. Additional literature reviews identified 23 needs. No evidence-based interventions to address these needs were reported; self-management was highlighted as a possible delivery mechanism. In workstream 2, a national survey revealed that the most common model of stroke service provision was care up to 12 months post stroke, reported by 46 (40%) services. Thirty-five (30%) services provided care up to 6 months post stroke and 35 (30%) provided care beyond 12 months, thus identifying 6 months post stroke as an appropriate delivery point for a new intervention. Through focus groups in a range of services, stroke survivors’ perceived unmet needs and the barriers to and enablers of service provision were identified. Intervention: Using information obtained in workstreams 1 and 2 and working closely with a stakeholder reference group, we developed an intervention based on the unmet needs prioritised by stroke survivors and their carers (workstream 3). In workstream 4, action groups (clinicians, stroke survivors and researchers) were established in three stroke services that led implementation in their service and contributed to the iterative refinement of the intervention, associated training programme and implementation materials. The intervention (called New Start) was delivered at 6 months post stroke. Key components were problem-solving self-management with survivors and carers, help with obtaining usable information, and helping survivors and their carers build sustainable, flexible support networks. Results: A cluster randomised feasibility trial (workstream 5) was successfully implemented in 10 stroke services across England and Wales, with associated process and health economic evaluations. Five services were randomised to provide New Start, while five continued with usual care; 269 participants were recruited. Progression criteria – in terms of our pre-determined (red, amber, green) criteria for progress to a full trial: target stroke survivor recruitment rates were achieved, on average, across sites (24.1 per site over 6 months, green); 216 (80.3%) registered stroke survivors returned follow-up questionnaires at 9 months (84.1% in the intervention arm and 75.8% in the usual care arm, green); according to data reported by sites, overall, 95.2% of registered stroke survivors were offered at least one session of the intervention (green); all five intervention sites had at least two facilitators deemed competent, delivered the New Start intervention and provided it to stroke survivors (green). However, at some sites, there were concerns regarding the number of stroke survivors being offered, accepting and receiving the intervention. Only small differences in outcomes and costs were observed between the New Start and usual care groups, and considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness remains. Conclusions: We report a complex programme of work that has described the longer-term needs of stroke survivors and highlighted evidence and service gaps. Working closely with stroke survivors, an intervention was developed that has been refined in three services and feasibility tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Further refinement of the target population and optimisation of the intervention materials is required prior to a full randomised controlled trial evaluation. Future work: Optimisation of the intervention, and clearer specification of recipients, are required prior to a full trial evaluation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38920246. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Programme Grants for Applied Research Volume: 9, Issue: 2, Published in March 2021

To summarize the evidence concerning the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in delirium prevention in older adults admitted to hospital.

Background: Community hospitals are small hospitals providing local inpatient and outpatient services. National surveys report that inpatient rehabilitation for older people is a core function but there are large differences in key performance measures. We have investigated these variations in community hospital ward performance.Objectives: (1) To measure the relative performance of community hospital wards (studies 1 and 2); (2) to identify characteristics of community hospital wards that optimise performance (studies 1 and 3); (3) to develop a web-based interactive toolkit that supports operational changes to optimise ward performance (study 4); (4) to investigate the impact of community hospital wards on secondary care use (study 5); and (5) to investigate associations between short-term community (intermediate care) services and secondary care utilisation (study 5).Methods: Study 1 – we used national data to conduct econometric estimations using stochastic frontier analysis in which a cost function was modelled using significant predictors of community hospital ward costs. Study 2 – a national postal survey was developed to collect data from a larger sample of community hospitals. Study 3 – three ethnographic case studies were performed to provide insight into less tangible aspects of community hospital ward care. Study 4 – a web-based interactive toolkit was developed by integrating the econometrics (study 1) and case study (study 3) findings. Study 5 – regression analyses were conducted using data from the Atlas of Variation Map 61 (rate of emergency admissions to hospital for people aged ≥ 75 years with a length of stay of < 24 hours) and the National Audit of Intermediate Care.Results: Community hospital ward efficiency is comparable with the NHS acute hospital sector (mean cost efficiency 0.83, range 0.72–0.92). The rank order of community hospital ward efficiencies was distinguished to facilitate learning across the sector. On average, if all community hospital wards were operating in line with the highest cost efficiency, savings of 17% (or £47M per year) could be achieved (price year 2013/14) for our sample of 101 wards. Significant economies of scale were found: a 1% rise in output was associated with an average 0.85% increase in costs. We were unable to obtain a larger community hospital sample because of the low response rate to our national survey. The case studies identified how rehabilitation was delivered through collaborative, interdisciplinary working; interprofessional communication; and meaningful patient and family engagement. We also developed insight into patients’ recovery trajectories and care transitions. The web-based interactive toolkit was established [http://mocha.nhsbenchmarking.nhs.uk/(accessed 9 September 2019)]. The crisis response team type of intermediate care, but not community hospitals, had a statistically significant negative association with emergency admissions.Limitations: The econometric analyses were based on cross-sectional data and were also limited by missing data. The low response rate to our national survey means that we cannot extrapolate reliably from our community hospital sample.Conclusions: The results suggest that significant community hospital ward savings may be realised by improving modifiable performance factors that might be augmented further by economies of scale.Future work: How less efficient hospitals might reduce costs and sustain quality requires further research.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 ‘A’s test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test – 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost.Methods: Phase 1 – the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 – the 4AT’s diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted.Results: Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0–14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0–6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067.Limitations: Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness.Conclusions: These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years.Future work: Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0–12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment. Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61–87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92–97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26–57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98–100%). The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care. International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.