Detecting Delirium in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: A Review of Practice Compliance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Turchet C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6580728 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The sensitivity of the dipstick in elderly patients with a suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) is unclear because of the inclusion of patients with urine contamination or asymptomatic bacteriuria in previous studies.We selected consecutive patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized in internal medicine departments with bacteremic UTI (same organism in blood and urine cultures) minimizing misclassifications. The false positive rate was determined in consecutive patients with negative culture results. A positive dipstick was a test result with a trace leukocyte esterase and/or nitrite positivity. Bacteriuria was the growth of at least 105 colony-forming units per milliliter of urine.Of 20,555 consecutive patients, 228 had a bacteremic UTI, and 4069 a negative culture result. The sensitivity of the dipstick was 96.9% (95% CI-93.7-98.6) with a false positive rate of 42.4% (95% CI, 41.0-43.8) in those with a negative culture result.In elderly hospitalized patients with a bacteremic UTI, the dipstick urinalysis is highly sensitive, much higher than reported previously in studies of UTIs in the elderly. It is unclear whether the observed high sensitivity of the dipstick was due to the exclusion of patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria or to spectrum bias. Studies of the clinical utility/disutility of using a negative dipstick to rule out a urinary tract infection are warranted.
| S-EPMC5663520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective Early identification of delirium, which often occurs in older patients, can effectively reduce adverse prognoses. One way to increase the detection rate of delirium is to use an effective ultrabrief instrument for higher-frequency screening. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrabrief screening tools for delirium. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 1974, to November 31, 2022. We assessed the measurement properties of screening instruments using the consensus-based standards for selecting health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist and evaluated the risk bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The diagnostic test accuracy of instruments for delirium was reported using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). Result Of the 4,914 items identified, 26 met the eligibility criteria, resulting in 5 different delirium identification tools. The overall study quality assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was moderate to good. Of the five screening tools, two instruments had sensitivity ≥80% and specificities ≥80%: 4AT and UB-2. The most comprehensive is the 4AT scale, which has a sensitivity of 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68, 0.88] and a specificity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.83, 0.93) and contains 4 items. UB-2 has a sensitivity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.96) and a specificity of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.70). Conclusion UB-2 and MOTYB had excellent sensitivity for delirium screening at an early stage. In terms of sensitivity and intentionality, the 4AT is the best recommended scale.
| S-EPMC10214704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelirium commonly occurs in hospitalized adults. Psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can co-occur with delirium, and can be recognized and managed by clinicians using recommendations found in methodological guiding statements called Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The specific aims of this review were to: [1] synthesize CPG recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in adults with delirium in acute care; and [2] identify recent published literature in addition to those identified and reported in a 2017 review on delirium CPG recommendations and quality.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and 21 sites on the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies listed in the Health Grey Matters Lite tool were searched from inception to February 12, 2021. Selected CPGs focused on delirium in acute care, were endorsed by an international scientific society or governmental organization, and contained at least one recommendation for the diagnosis or management of delirium. Two reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and independently assessed CPG quality using the AGREE-II tool. Narrative synthesis of CPG recommendations was conducted.ResultsTitle and abstract screening was completed on 7611 records. Full-text review was performed on 197 CPGs. The final review included 27 CPGs of which 7 (26%) provided recommendations for anxiety (4/7, 57%), depression (5/7, 71%), and PTSD (1/7, 14%) in delirium. Twenty CPGs provided recommendations for delirium only (e.g., assess patient regularly, avoid use of benzodiazepines). Recommendations for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders with delirium included using evidence-based diagnostic criteria and standardized screening tools. Recommendations for the management of psychiatric disorders with delirium included pharmacological (e.g., anxiolytics, antidepressants) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., promoting patient orientation using clocks). Guideline quality varied: the lowest was Applicability (mean = 36%); the highest Clarity of Presentation (mean = 76%).ConclusionsThere are few available evidence-based CPGs to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in patients with delirium in acute care. Future guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based recommendations on the diagnosis and management of these psychiatric disorders in delirium.Systematic review registrationRegistration number: PROSPERO (CRD42021237056).
| S-EPMC10519074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium after surgery and in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains a challenge for patients, families, and caregivers. Over the years, many promising biomarkers have been investigated as potential instruments for risk stratification of delirium. This review aimed to identify and assess the clinical usefulness of candidate serum biomarkers associated with hospital delirium in patients aged 60 years and older. We performed a time-unlimited review of publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE databases until June 2019 that evaluated baseline and/or longitudinal biomarker measurements in patients suffering from delirium at some point during their hospital stay. A total of 32 studies were included in this review reporting information on 7610 patients. Of these 32 studies, twenty-four studies reported data from surgical patients including four studies in ICU cohorts, five studies reported data from medical patients (1026 patients), and three studies reported data from a mixed cohort (1086 patients), including one study in an ICU cohort. Findings confirm restricted clinical usefulness to predict or diagnose delirium due to limited evidence on which biomarkers can be used and limited availability due to non-routine use.
| S-EPMC6603109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium after elective surgery is frequent and potentially serious. We sought to determine whether the use of statin medications was associated with a higher risk of postoperative delirium than other medications that do not alter microvascular autoregulation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 284 158 consecutive patients in Ontario aged 65 years and older who were admitted for elective surgery. We identified exposure to statins from outpatient pharmacy records before admission. We identified delirium by examining hospital records after surgery. RESULTS: About 7% (n = 19 501) of the patients were taking statins. Overall, 3195 patients experienced postoperative delirium; the rate was significantly higher among patients taking statins (14 per 1000) than among those not taking statins (11 per 1000) (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.47, p < 0.001). The increased risk of postoperative delirium persisted after we adjusted for multiple demographic, medical and surgical factors (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.46) and exceeded the increased risk of delirium associated with prolonging surgery by 30 minutes (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.19-1.21). The relative risk associated with statin use was somewhat higher among patients who had noncardiac surgery than among those who had cardiac surgery (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.16-1.53), and extended to more complicated cases of delirium. We did not observe an increased risk of delirium with 20 other cardiac or noncardiac medications. INTERPRETATION: The use of statins is associated with an increased risk of postoperative delirium among elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.
| S-EPMC2535740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with multimorbidity and complex health care needs are usually vulnerable elders with several concomitant advanced chronic diseases. Our research aim was to evaluate differences in patterns of multimorbidity by gender in this population and their possible prognostic implications, measured as in-hospital mortality, 1-month readmissions, and 1-year mortality. We focused on a cohort of elderly patients with well-established multimorbidity criteria admitted to a specific unit for chronic complex-care patients. Multimorbidity criteria, the Charlson, PROFUND and Barthel indexes, and the Pfeiffer test were collected prospectively during their stays. A total of 843 patients (49.2% men) were included, with a median age of 84 [interquartile range (IQR) 79-89] years. The women were older, with greater functional dependence [Barthel index: 40 (IQR:10-65) vs. 60 (IQR: 25-90)], showed more cognitive deterioration [Pfeiffer test: 5 (IQR:1-9) vs. 1 (0-6)], and had worse scores on the PROFUND index [15 (IQR:9-18) vs. 11.5 (IQR: 6-15)], all p <0.0001, while men had greater comorbidity measured with the Charlson index [5 (IQR: 3-7) vs. 4 (IQR: 3-6); p = 0.002]. In the multimorbidity criteria scale, heart failure, autoimmune diseases, dementia, and osteoarticular diseases were more frequent in women, while ischemic heart disease, chronic respiratory diseases, and neoplasms predominated in men. In the analysis of grouped patterns, neurological and osteoarticular diseases were more frequent in females, while respiratory and cancer predominated in males. We did not find gender differences for in-hospital mortality, 1-month readmissions, or 1-year mortality. In the multivariate analysis age, the Charlson, Barthel and PROFUND indexes, along with previous admissions, were independent predictors of 1-year mortality, while gender was non-significant. The Charlson and PROFUND indexes predicted mortality during follow-up more accurately in men than in women (AUC 0.70 vs. 0.57 and 0.74 vs. 0.62, respectively), with both p<0.001. In conclusion, our study shows differing patterns of multimorbidity by gender, with greater functional impairment in women and more comorbidity in men, although without differences in the prognosis. Moreover, some of these prognostic indicators had differing accuracy for the genders in predicting mortality.
| S-EPMC6986758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition in elderly people (ie, those aged 65 years or older) that is common, serious, costly, under-recognised, and often fatal. A formal cognitive assessment and history of acute onset of symptoms are necessary for diagnosis. In view of the complex multifactorial causes of delirium, multicomponent non-pharmacological risk factor approaches are the most effective strategy for prevention. No convincing evidence shows that pharmacological prevention or treatment is effective. Drug reduction for sedation and analgesia and non-pharmacological approaches are recommended. Delirium offers opportunities to elucidate brain pathophysiology--it serves both as a marker of brain vulnerability with decreased reserve and as a potential mechanism for permanent cognitive damage. As a potent indicator of patients' safety, delirium provides a target for system-wide process improvements. Public health priorities include improvements in coding, reimbursement from insurers, and research funding, and widespread education for clinicians and the public about the importance of delirium.
| S-EPMC4120864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesDelirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.DesignWe conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.MeasurementsTwo reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.ResultsOf 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.ConclusionFour commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.
| S-EPMC7902461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the reported risk prediction models and identify the most prevalent factors for incident delirium in older inpatient populations (age ≥ 65 years). In the future, these risk factors could be used to develop a delirium risk prediction model in the electronic health record that can be used by the Hospital Elder Life Program to reduce the incidence of delirium.MethodsA medical librarian customized and conducted a search strategy for all published articles on delirium prediction models using an array of electronic databases and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, a geriatrician and two research associates assessed the quality of the selected studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsA total of 4,351 articles were identified from initial literature search. After review, data were extracted from 12 studies. The quality of these studies was assessed using NOS and ranged from 4 to 8. The most common risk factors reported were dementia, decreased functional status, high blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio, infection and severe illness.ConclusionsThe most prevalent factors associated with incidence of delirium in hospitalized older patients identified by this systematic review could be used to develop an electronic health record-generated risk prediction model to identify inpatients at risk of developing delirium.
| S-EPMC6664369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Guidelines recommend daily delirium monitoring of hospitalized patients. Available delirium-screening tools have not been validated for use by nurses among diverse inpatients.We sought to validate the Nursing Delirium-Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) under these circumstances.A blinded cross-sectional and quality-improvement study was conducted from August 2015-February 2016. Nurses? Nu-DESC scores were compared to delirium diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) criteria. A total of 405 consecutive hospitalized patients were included. Nu-DESC-positive (threshold score ?2) patients were matched with equal numbers of Nu-DESC-negative patients, by sex, age, and nursing unit. Nurses recorded a Nu-DESC score for each patient on every 12-hour shift. A Nu-DESC-blinded evaluator interviewed patients for 2 consecutive days. Delirium diagnosis was determined by physicians using DSM-5 criteria applied to collected research data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were calculated. In an exploratory analysis, the performance of the Nu-DESC was analyzed with the addition of bedside measures of attention.The sensitivity of the Nu-DESC at a threshold of ?2 was 42% (95% CI: 33-53%). Specificity was 98% (97-98%). At a threshold of ?1, sensitivity was 67% (52-80%) and specificity 93% (90-95%). Similar results were found with the addition of attention tasks.The Nu-DESC is a specific delirium detection tool, but it is not sensitive at the usually proposed cut point of ?2. Using a threshold of ?1 or adding a test of attention increase sensitivity with a minor decrease in specificity.
| S-EPMC5798858 | biostudies-literature