CAM-ED record: CAM evaluated in the Emergency Department

2001

A record of standard CAM use in emergency-department studies rather than an unequivocally separate instrument. The later mCAM-ED remains the clearer named ED adaptation.

At a glance

Purpose: Episodic assessment
Population: Adult
Setting: Emergency department
Time: ~5 min
Items: 4
Score or threshold: Feature-based CAM-family classification; see the source for the operational rule.

Format: A four-feature CAM-family assessment evaluated in emergency-department practice, with reported administration around five minutes. The feature wording, prompts and decision rule are not reproduced here.

Strengths: CAM usable by a trained lay interviewer in the ED
Limitations: Single-centre; distinct from mCAM-ED

CAM usually means the four-feature short form; the long form has ten items. Check which form and supporting assessment the study used. Short and long CAM explained.

Training and instructions

Public training resources have not yet been confirmed in this review. Check the linked developer or original source for instructions.

Start here

Tool and original sources

This record describes a method rather than a downloadable bedside form. The main source is linked below.

NIDUS information cards ↗

Original paper

Original paperMonette J, Galbaud du Fort G, Fung SH, Massoud F, Moride Y, Arsenault L, et al. Evaluation of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) as a screening tool for delirium in the emergency room. General hospital psychiatry. 2001;23(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/s0163-8343(00)00116-x. PMID: 11226553.
This is the original published source for CAM-ED record. It reported sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 100% against the study's independent clinical reference assessment.
Open PubMed ↗

One DTA study identifiedVersion or adaptation

Classification

Episodic assessment

A tool may belong to more than one category. Select a linked category to see other relevant profiles.

Evidence

Diagnostic-accuracy evidenceOne DTA study identified

Reported sensitivity and specificity

Headline metric source

Original/source study · 2001; pmid:11226553

Denominator: Reported source unit: 110 (analysis unit not fully reconciled)
Reference standard: Geriatrician-completed CAM algorithm during the same interview; DSM comparisons are ancillary and not the published primary DTA comparator

86%

Sensitivity

100%

Specificity

CAM by a trained lay interviewer vs geriatrician in the ED (n=110).

More evidence and citation details

Full name: CAM evaluated in the Emergency Department
Also known as: CAM-ED, Confusion Assessment Method Emergency Department
Related profiles: CAM
Evidence summary: single-DTA
Diagnostic-accuracy evaluations: 1
Reference standard: Geriatrician CAM
Reliability: κ 0.91
Citation: Monette J, Galbaud du Fort G, Fung SH, Massoud F, Moride Y, Arsenault L, Afilalo M Evaluation of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) as a screening tool for delirium in the emergency room General hospital psychiatry. 2001;23(1):20-5. PMID 11226553

Download RIS ↗ Download BibTeX ↗

Primary validation studies

Distinct primary publications from the current diagnostic-accuracy audit. Reviews and repeated evaluations within one paper are not counted again. Overlapping cohorts have not all been reconciled. Read the counting rules and limitations.

Open 1 identified paper

Monette J, Galbaud du Fort G, Fung SH, Massoud F, Moride Y, Arsenault L, Afilalo M (2001). Evaluation of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) as a screening tool for delirium in the emergency room. General hospital psychiatry.
Reference category: other comparator or secondary accuracy evidence.

Information checked: 2026-07-19

Instrument-specific terms apply. See the access and copyright policy or send a correction.

Base clinical review: 2026-07-29. Instrument description source check: 2026-09-05. Scope and limitations.

CAM-ED record: CAM evaluated in the Emergency Department

At a glance

Primary validation papers

Large-scale clinical implementation