Dataset Information

A core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium for adults requiring an acute care hospital admission: an international key stakeholder informed consensus study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

Methods

A rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members.

Results

Item generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting.

Conclusions

This COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

SUBMITTER: Rose L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211534 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.DesignInternational consensus process.SettingThree virtual meetings (April 2021).Patients/subjectsCritical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMeasures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge.ConclusionsConsensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.

Project description:PurposeHospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs.MethodsWe created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies.ResultsThrough discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews).ConclusionsExisting guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is common in critically ill patients and associated with longer hospital stays, increased morbidity and higher healthcare costs. Non-pharmacological interventions have been advocated for delirium management, however there is little evidence evaluating feasibility and acceptability of physical interventions administered in the evening. The aim of this study was to conduct a feasibility trial of evening mobilisation to prevent and treat delirium in patients admitted to intensive care.MethodsIn this mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial we recruited participants from intensive care units at two university hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants who were able to respond to verbal stimulus (Richmond agitation and sedation scale ≥3) and expected to stay in intensive care for at least 24 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care or usual care plus evening mobilisation. The evening mobilisation was delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, for up to seven consecutive evenings or ICU discharge, whichever was sooner. All outcome assessments were completed by a team member blinded to randomisation and group allocation. Primary objective was to assess feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, consent and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Intervention acceptability was evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcomes included prevalence in incidence and duration of delirium, measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05401461.FindingsBetween July 16th, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, 58 eligible patients (29 usual care; 29 usual care plus evening mobilisation) were enrolled. We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of both the trial design and evening mobilisation intervention. Consent and retention rates over three months were 88% (58/66) and 90% (52/58) respectively, with qualitative analysis demonstrating good acceptability reported by both participants and staff. Secondary outcomes for the evening intervention group compared with the control group were: delirium incidence 5/26 (19%; 95% CI: 6-39%) vs 8/28 (29%; 95% CI: 13-49%) and mean delirium duration 2 days (SD 0.7) vs 4.25 days (SD 2.0).InterpretationResults of this trial will inform the development of a definitive full-scale randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of evening mobilisation to treat delirium and improve health-related outcomes.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is both a global public health and patient safety problem driven by overprescribing of antibiotic and other antimicrobial drugs. To conserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations, antibiotic stewardship approaches to using them only where appropriate and necessary are advocated. Dentistry accounts for about 10% of antibiotic prescriptions across global healthcare, with 80% not in accordance with guidance in some countries. Core outcome sets enable the results of studies to be compared in order to maximise the value which can be derived from them. The aim of this study is to develop an international consensus on a core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship.MethodsConsensus on outcomes which are critical for inclusion in the core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship will be sought through two rounds of a Delphi survey (using the DelphiManager online system) followed by a final online consensus meeting. Thirty participants will be recruited to the Delphi Panel from across three stakeholder groups: ten dentists, ten academics and ten adults experienced with dental antibiotics as either a patient or parent/carer of a patient who has been prescribed them. Consensus will be achieved if more than 70% of the panel agree that an outcome is critical, with at least one from each stakeholder group in agreement. A long-list of candidate core outcomes has been developed from previously published studies with additions recommended by the steering group. The steering group will oversee development of the core outcome set and includes people from around the world with experience of dental antibiotics: clinicians, researchers and people with experience of being prescribed dental antibiotics and/or surviving an antibiotic resistant infection.DiscussionTo date, few studies of dental antibiotic stewardship have been published. Internationally, dental antibiotic guidelines and patterns of use vary widely, so a core outcome set is particularly important to facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies. This core outcome set will encompass antibiotic prescribing for both therapeutic indications, such as for people with acute infections, and for prophylactic indications, such as the prevention of distant site infections (like infective endocarditis) following dental procedures.