{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05325034578146611, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04149377593360996, 'mean_word_length': 4.319852941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Validity of the Paddington Alcohol Test in an Australian Emergency Department†.

AIM
The aim of this study was to validate a modified version of the Paddington Alcohol Test for use in the Australian emergency department (ED) setting.


METHODS
A cross sectional survey was used to screen patients attending an Australian tertiary hospital ED. Data were collected over a three-month period at randomly allocated time periods and days. Consenting participants were screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a modified-for-Australia version of the Paddington Alcohol Test (AusPAT). The association between the two tools was investigated, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of AusPAT at various AUDIT cut-off scores and by gender and age group.


RESULTS
The sample comprised 637 ED attendees. Their mean age was 49.9 (SD 20.0) years with a mean AUDIT score of 5.21 (SD 6.58). Most (73.2%) consumed alcohol, and a quarter was AusPAT-positive (n = 153, 24.0%). AusPAT demonstrated a moderate fit with AUDIT at a cut-off score of 8 (Kappa = 0.63, P < 0.001). At this cut-off 23.4% (n = 149) were identified by AUDIT as problematic drinkers. AusPAT sensitivity was 72.5% (95% CI 65.3-79.7) with a specificity of 90.8% (95% CI 88.3-93.4).


CONCLUSION
Our results indicate that AusPAT was moderately well associated with AUDIT. When used universally in the ED setting, its sensitivity and specificity were moderate.