Dataset Information

Detecting Delirium in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: A Review of Practice Compliance.

ABSTRACT: Background: The Ontario Senior Friendly Hospital Strategy recognizes delirium prevention and management as a top priority and recommends implementation of delirium screening as well as management protocols. This strategy proposes that hospitals monitor 2 specific indicators: (1) rate of baseline delirium screening and (2) rate of hospital-acquired delirium. Objective: To (1) determine compliance with the Ontario Senior Friendly Hospital Strategy indicators; (2) describe the use of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for management of delirious patients; and (3) identify predictors of screening compliance. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients aged ≥65 years admitted to 4 different inpatient units for ≥48 hours. Data were extracted for 7 two-month time blocks chosen between September 2010 and October 2013, following the implementation of various geriatric and delirium related initiatives at the hospital. Results: A total of 786 patients met study inclusion criteria. Overall, 68.2% had baseline delirium screening (indicator 1), with screening rates increasing over time (P < .001). Inpatient unit and year of study were both statistically significant predictors of delirium screening. Among those screened, the overall rate of hospital-acquired delirium was 17.2% (indicator 2). Early mobilization and device removal were the most common nonpharmacological interventions, while initiation of an antipsychotic and discontinuation of benzodiazepines were the most common pharmacological interventions. Conclusions: Although the rates of baseline delirium screening have significantly increased over the sampled time period, rates are still below the averages referenced in other literature. Our study suggests we need additional efforts to improve compliance with delirium screening in our institution.

SUBMITTER: Turchet C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6580728 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Detecting Delirium in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: A Review of Practice Compliance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure