Time Comparison
For the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU, they required similar amount of time to deliver the tools, with “delirious and/or demented patients taking about two minutes longer than normal patients (median of 5 vs. 3 minutes)” (Kurczmarska et al, 2016, p. 301). However, Kuczmarska et al. (2016) found that the CAM-ICU took longer to administer. According to Kuczmarska et al. (2016), the reason for the discrepancy is due to the fact that in the ICU, many of the patients had RASS scores of -4 or -5, which terminates the CAM-ICU before continuing on with the assessment questions. The 3D-CAM was completed in three minutes, while the CAM-ICU was completed in four minutes (Kuczmarska et al., 2016). According to Fick et al (2015), time has been classified as one of the barriers to delirium identification. The major barriers of time were the time it took to complete the tools and the patients’ level of cooperation. With these barriers in mind, they believe that even the 3D-CAM can be too long. An ultra brief screening tool has been created from the 3D-CAM to help recognize those with delirium in a timely manner with a two-step approach. If the two-step …show more content…
The first limitation is the limitations of each research articles. The second limitation to this study was the lack of research articles. Not only were there very few articles that discussed the comparison of the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU, but also the 3D-CAM alone due to it being a newer tool. Another limitation was that most of the research articles focused more on patients who were at least 75 years of age in the ICU units and general medicine units. This excludes the younger population, postoperative settings, palliative settings, and little information regarding patients upon the emergency room. Many of these articles included small sample sizes within one or two organizations. Due to these limitations, it greatly affects the generalizability and validity of this
For the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU, they required similar amount of time to deliver the tools, with “delirious and/or demented patients taking about two minutes longer than normal patients (median of 5 vs. 3 minutes)” (Kurczmarska et al, 2016, p. 301). However, Kuczmarska et al. (2016) found that the CAM-ICU took longer to administer. According to Kuczmarska et al. (2016), the reason for the discrepancy is due to the fact that in the ICU, many of the patients had RASS scores of -4 or -5, which terminates the CAM-ICU before continuing on with the assessment questions. The 3D-CAM was completed in three minutes, while the CAM-ICU was completed in four minutes (Kuczmarska et al., 2016). According to Fick et al (2015), time has been classified as one of the barriers to delirium identification. The major barriers of time were the time it took to complete the tools and the patients’ level of cooperation. With these barriers in mind, they believe that even the 3D-CAM can be too long. An ultra brief screening tool has been created from the 3D-CAM to help recognize those with delirium in a timely manner with a two-step approach. If the two-step …show more content…
The first limitation is the limitations of each research articles. The second limitation to this study was the lack of research articles. Not only were there very few articles that discussed the comparison of the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU, but also the 3D-CAM alone due to it being a newer tool. Another limitation was that most of the research articles focused more on patients who were at least 75 years of age in the ICU units and general medicine units. This excludes the younger population, postoperative settings, palliative settings, and little information regarding patients upon the emergency room. Many of these articles included small sample sizes within one or two organizations. Due to these limitations, it greatly affects the generalizability and validity of this