Dataset Information

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.

Objective

To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.

Design

Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.

Methods

The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery.

Results

Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery.

Conclusions

The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.

SUBMITTER: Noble E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7614362 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Noble Erin E McCartney Haruno H MacLullich Alasdair M AM Shenkin Susan D SD Muniz-Terrera Graciela G Evans Jonathan J JJ Davis Daniel D Sandeman Daisy D Tieges Zoë Z

Delirium communications 20221201

<h4>Background</h4>A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.<h4>Design</h4>Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.<h4>Methods</h4>The survey covered me ...[more]

PMID: 36968519

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, progressive and potentially life-limiting multisystem disease, affecting every aspect of a patient's life.ObjectivesThis online international Delphi survey aimed to evolve clinical-patient-led practical guidance, to inspire and encourage a holistic approach to care that is managed in specialist settings by multidisciplinary teams and supported by allied healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patient advocacy groups (PAGs).DesignA 14-member joint patient advocate-HCP primary panel was convened including representation from PAGs and key clinical specialties (neurology, cardiology, internal medicine, physiotherapy, clinical psychology, dietetics and specialist nursing). Guidance evolved on the care provision needed to support seven core goals: early diagnosis and treatment; disease monitoring and organisation of care; maintenance of physical and mental health; family-centred care and caregiver support; patient-doctor dialogue; access to social support and social networking.ParticipantsFrom June to October 2022, 252 HCPs and 51 PAG representatives from 27 countries were invited to participate in a Delphi survey. Of the 122 respondents who answered at least one survey question, most were HCPs (100, 82%) from specialist centres; the remainder were PAG representatives (22, 18%).Main outcome measureBoth level of agreement and feasibility in practice of each recommendation was tested by two anonymised online Delphi voting rounds.ResultsBased on an a priori threshold for consensus of ≥75% agreement, the clinical-patient community endorsed all but one recommendation. However, only 17/49 (35%) recommendations were identified by most HCPs as a core part of routine care; the remainder (32/49 (65%)) were identified as part of core care by <50% of HCPs respondents, or as largely achievable by 30%-45% of HCPs. By comparison, PAGs recorded lower implementation levels.ConclusionsFurther consideration is needed on how to evolve multidisciplinary services (supported by allied HCPs and PAGs) to address the complex needs of those affected by this disease.

Project description:IntroductionScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting.MethodsA cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis.ResultsAt least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8-20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7-55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0-59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9-63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator.ConclusionInner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care.

Dataset Information

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Background

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets