Identification Of Delirium Research Articles

Harmonization of Four Delirium Instruments: Creating Crosswalks and the Delirium Item-Bank (DEL-IB)

ObjectivesOver 30 instruments are in current, active use for delirium identification. In a recent systematic review, we recommended 4 commonly used and well-validated instruments for clinical and research use. The goal of this study is to harmonize the four instruments on the same metric using modern methods in psychometrics. DesignSecondary data analysis from 3 studies, and a simulation study based on the observed data. SettingHospitalized (non-ICU) adults over 65 years old in the United States, Ireland, and Belgium. ParticipantsThe total sample comprised 600 participants, contributing 1,623 assessments. MeasurementsConfusion Assessment Method (long-form and short-form), Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) (total and severity scores), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. ResultsUsing item response theory, we linked scores across instruments, placing all four instruments and their separate scorings on the same metric (the propensity to delirium). Kappa statistics comparing agreement in delirium identification among the instruments ranged from 0.37 to 0.75, with the highest agreement between the DRS-R-98 total score and MDAS. After linking scores, we created a harmonized item bank, called the Delirium Item Bank (DEL-IB), consisting of 50 items. The DEL-IB allowed us to create six crosswalks, to allow scores to be translated across instruments. ConclusionsWith our results, individual instrument scores can be directly compared to aid in clinical decision-making, and quantitatively combined in meta-analyses.

533 READMISSIONS TO GERIATRIC MEDICINE IN A DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL, A THEMATIC ANALYSIS

Abstract Introduction 621 patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge from our Geriatric Medicine department between October 2019 and March 2020. This project was undertaken to better understand whether some of these readmissions could be prevented. Methods Analysis showed a clear peak of 78 patients returning at day one post discharge, and a subsequent Pareto analysis revealed that nearly 80% of these were discharged from 2 locations, our frailty unit and MAU. This cohort became the focus of our review. With support from the Acute Frailty Network, a virtual structured case note review was undertaken by a multidisciplinary team including an independent Geriatrician. This considered the patient’s case, whether they were cared for by the right team in the right place, whether they were readmitted with a new diagnosis and whether any improvements in the discharge process or wider service could have prevented their readmission. Results The case note review process was halted early as clear recurring themes emerged. Firstly, feedback showed that all frail patients were identified early in the patient pathway, were cared for by the appropriate team and a CGA was commenced promptly. Secondly, whilst the majority of day one readmissions had a diagnosis of delirium, most were not diagnosed as such until their re-attendance, despite documented confusion. Failure to recognise this, treat their delirium, and plan for fluctuations in cognition upon discharge were found to contribute to a high readmission rate. Conclusion We found that delirium identification was a key factor in early readmissions to our service. We identified clear opportunities to strengthen and formalise delirium diagnoses, and better plan patient management and discharge plans as a result. A multidisciplinary quality improvement group looking at delirium has been initiated and has already achieved a statistically significant improvement in the use of 4AT, a delirium assessment tool.

Delirium in adult patients in intensive care: nursing interventions.

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome of high incidence in the critically ill patient. It is characterised by changes in acute attention and cognition, has a multifactorial aetiology and has a negative impact on the patient's clinical situation and future quality of life. Prevention of delirium and early identification can reduce associated morbidity and mortality. Consequently, it is vital that intensive care unit (ICU) nurses perform targeted patient monitoring to identify acute cognitive changes. To identify nursing interventions directed at the prevention and management of delirium in adult patients in ICU. A scoping review was undertaken based on the principles recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Seven studies were selected for inclusion. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological nursing interventions were identified. The interventions identified were predominantly aimed at the prevention of delirium. The training of nurses and wider clinical team in preventing and identifying this syndrome is crucial.

The frequency and quality of delirium documentation in discharge summaries

BackgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends documenting all delirium episodes in the discharge summary using the term “delirium”. Previous studies demonstrate poor delirium documentation rates in discharge summaries and no studies have assessed delirium documentation quality. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and quality of delirium documentation in discharge summaries and explore differences between medical and surgical services.MethodsThis was a multi-center retrospective chart review. We included 110 patients aged ≥ 65 years identified to have delirium during their hospitalization using the Chart-based Delirium Identification Instrument (CHART-DEL). We assessed the frequency of any delirium documentation in discharge summaries, and more specifically, for the term “delirium”. We evaluated the quality of delirium discharge documentation using the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization’s framework for quality discharge summaries. Comparisons were made between medical and surgical services. Secondary outcomes included assessing factors influencing the frequency of “delirium” being documented in the discharge summary.ResultsWe identified 110 patients with sufficient chart documentation to identify delirium and 80.9 % of patients had delirium documented in their discharge summary (“delirium” or other acceptable term). The specific term “delirium” was reported in 63.6 % of all delirious patients and more often by surgical than medical specialties (76.5 % vs. 52.5 %, p = 0.02). Documentation quality was significantly lower by surgical specialties in reporting delirium as a diagnosis (23.5 % vs. 57.6 %, p < 0.001), documenting delirium workup (23.4 % vs. 57.6 %, p = 0.001), etiology (43.3 % vs. 70.4 %, p = 0.03), treatment (36.7 % vs. 66.7 %, p = 0.02), medication changes (44.4 % vs. 100 %, p = 0.002) and follow-up (36.4 % vs. 88.2 %, p = 0.01).ConclusionsThe frequency of delirium documentation is higher than previously reported but remains subpar. Medical services document delirium with higher quality, but surgical specialties document the term “delirium” more frequently. The documentation of delirium in discharge summaries must improve to meet quality standards.

The COVID-19 conundrum: Where both the virus and treatment contribute to delirium

Whereas hospitalists and intensivists are treating the life-threatening respiratory conditions that often accompany COVID-19, delirium prevention, identification, and treatment may inadvertently be taking a backseat. However, delirium identification is important as it can serve as a key marker for hospital providers to identify COVID patients at risk for poor outcomes including ICU stay and death.2 COVID delirium has been difficult to manage because some COVID treatment methods are inherently deliriogenic and some medications traditionally used to manage delirium have been rendered ineffective among this population. Inpatient neurology and psychiatry practitioners are having to postulate new treatment techniques; one such medication algorithm can be found within this piece. It is important that delirium doesn't get lost in the chaos that is management of the COVID patient.

A mobile app for delirium screening.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to describe the algorithm and technical implementation of a mobile app that uses adaptive testing to assess an efficient mobile app for the diagnosis of delirium.Materials and MethodsThe app was used as part of a NIH-funded project to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, administration time, and costs of the 2-step delirium identification protocol when performed by physicians and nurses, and certified nursing assistants (CNA). The cohort included 535 hospitalized patients aged 79.7 (SD = 6.6) years enrolled at 2 different sites. Each patient was assessed on 2 consecutive days by the research associate who performed the reference delirium assessment. Thereafter, physicians, nurses, and CNAs performed adaptive delirium assessments using the app. Qualitative data to assess the experience of administering the 2-step protocol, and the app usability were also collected and analyzed from 50 physicians, 189 nurses, and 83 CNAs. We used extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML) and JavaScript to develop the app for the iOS–based iPad. The App was linked to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a relational database system, via a REDCap application programming interface (API) that sent and received data from/to the app. The data from REDCap were sent to the Statistical Analysis System for statistical analysis.ResultsThe app graphical interface was successfully implemented by XHTML and JavaScript. The API facilitated the instant updating and retrieval of delirium status data between REDCap and the app. Clinicians performed 881 delirium assessments using the app for 535 patients. The transmission of data between the app and the REDCap system showed no errors. Qualitative data indicated that the users were enthusiastic about using the app with no negative comments, 82% positive comments, and 18% suggestions of improvement. Delirium administration time for the 2-step protocol showed similar total time between nurses and physicians (103.9 vs 106.5 seconds). Weekly enrollment reports of the app data were generated for study tracking purposes, and the data are being used for statistical analyses for publications.DiscussionThe app developed using iOS could be easily converted to other operating systems such as Android and could be linked to other relational databases beside REDCap, such as electronic health records to facilitate better data retrieval and updating of patient’s delirium status.ConclusionOur app operationalizes an adaptive 2-step delirium screening protocol. Its algorithm and cross-plat formed code of XHTML and JavaScript can be easily exported to other operating systems and hardware platforms, thus enabling wider use of the efficient delirium screening protocol that we have developed. The app is currently implemented as a research tool, but with adaptation could be implemented in the clinical setting to facilitate widespread delirium screening in hospitalized older adults.

ED-DEL: Development of a change package and toolkit for delirium in the emergency department.

Delirium is a common and deadly problem in the emergency department affecting up to 30% of older adult patients. The 2013 Geriatric Emergency Department guidelines were developed to address the unique needs of the growing older population and identified delirium as a high priority area. The emergency department (ED) environment presents unique challenges for the identification and management of delirium, including patient crowding, time pressures, competing priorities, variable patient acuity, and limitations in available patient information. Accordingly, protocols developed for inpatient units may not be appropriate for use in the ED setting. We created a Delirium Change Package and Toolkit in the Emergency Department (ED‐DEL) to provide protocols and guidance for implementing a delirium program in the ED setting. This article describes the multistep process by which the ED‐DEL program was created and the key components of the program. Our ultimate goal is to create a resource that can be disseminated widely and used to improve delirium identification, prevention, and management in older adults in the ED.

59 Improving the Identification and Management of Delirium in Older Surgical Patients

Abstract Local Problem A multidisciplinary team comprising a consultant geriatrician and nurse consultant reviews all patients aged ≥70 years who have an emergency laparotomy at Royal Derby Hospital. Anecdotally there is a high incidence of delirium but retrospective casenote audit found only 19% of patients admitted for emergency laparotomy July 2018–July 2019 were identified as having delirium by the surgical team. Method A first PDSA cycle showed that the 4AT was feasible for use by healthcare assistants on the surgical assessment unit (SAU). A second PDSA cycle, described here, sought to develop a rationale for implementation of the 4AT as part of surgical assessment by comparing true prevalence of delirium using 4AT, with the prevalence detected using methods currently mandated by our hospital. All patients aged ≥65 years admitted as part of the surgical pathway had 4AT completed by a member of our improvement team on admission, with daily review until discharge. Results Data were collected for 111 consecutive emergency surgical admissions. Mean (SD) age was 78.3 (7.7) years. Of these, 1 and 3 were categorised as having delirium and dementia respectively using existing hospital screening tools. Using 4AT, 36 (32%) of patients were identified as having delirium. When supplemented by clinical history, true prevalence was 40 (36%). Average (SD) length of stay was 7 (5.6) days for the whole cohort, 10 (6.5) and 5.3 (4.3) days for those with and without delirium respectively. Conclusions 4AT was 92% sensitive for delirium in our cohort. The existing hospital tool was underutilised to the point of being useless. Patients with delirium had a longer length of stay. We have developed a modified 4AT paper tool and training materials and are now piloting routine use in SAU.

Using Smart EHR Tools for Early Detection of Delirium in Hospitalized Older Adults

<h3>Introduction</h3> Delirium is a serious medical condition associated with increased mortality, increased length of hospital stay, high rates of rehospitalization and increased hospital costs. This illness is especially common in hospitalized older adults with estimated prevalence between 10-50% of this population. Guideline based treatment of delirium consists largely of delirium prevention and management of symptoms once diagnosed. Therefore, early detection and identification of patients at high risk of developing delirium are vital strategies. In a retrospective chart review assessing the current method for detecting delirium in a large, quaternary, academic medical center, prevalence was estimated at <3% of hospitalized patients. This suggests many cases go unreported. Previous studies have shown chart based methods to be valid tools for detecting delirium in hospitalized patients. Our team developed vACE NOVAD (Virtual Acute Care for Elders, Neurological Orientation Verbal Response Assessment of Delirium): a health care analytic tool utilizing nursing assessments documented in the EHR (electronic health record) to detect delirium in hospitalized patients. The following study aimed to validate this tool by comparing it to an existing validated delirium assessment: bCAM (Brief Confusion Assessment Method). <h3>Methods</h3> Researchers used a daily automated report to identify hospitalized patients 70 and older at a large quaternary academic medical hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Participants were chosen randomly from this report. Non-English speaking patients were excluded. Trained psychiatry resident physicians communicated with the patient's nurse and asked for the bCAM to be performed on the patient. The nurse then reported results of the assessment back to the researching physician who would score and document the results. Patients were considered to have delirium if the bCAM completed with the patient's nurse was positive. This was then compared to nurse's assessments, documented in the EHR, of patient's neurologic symptoms, best verbal response from the GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), and orientation over the previous 72 hours: NOVAD. If a patient was documented as anything other than having no neurologic symptoms, a best verbal response on GCS of "oriented," and an orientation assessment of "oriented x4," the patient was positive for delirium based on NOVAD. <h3>Results</h3> 30 hospitalized patients over the age of 70 were included in this initial prospective validation study. 30% (n=9) of patients in this study had delirium based on bCAM. Delirium prevalence based on NOVAD score was 70% (n=30). The sensitivity and specificity of NOVAD were found to be 78% and 33% respectively. <h3>Conclusions</h3> This chart-based, health care analytic tool is an effective and timely way to aid in early identification of delirium in hospitalized older adults. Given low specificity, it is not an alternative to a formal diagnostic evaluation by a physician. Further validation of the tool with a larger participant volume is ongoing. <h3>Funding</h3> No funding to declare

Delirium documentation in hospitalized pediatric patients with cancer.

Screening tools for delirium are being used more consistently in pediatric critical care. However, screening is not universal, and delirium may be underdiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or undocumented in hospitalized patients. We evaluated the identification and documentation of delirium in pediatric oncology and bone marrow transplant patients. A retrospective chart review on all hospitalized pediatric oncology and bone marrow transplant patients admitted to an Academic Cancer center between 2013 and 2016. Patients aged less than 21 years of age with active cancer were included. Patients with major psychiatric conditions, developmental delays, or autism were excluded. Data were collected to characterize documentation concerning the identification and diagnosis of delirium. Of 201 hospitalization records, 54 (26.9%) admissions from 109 unique patients had documentation of delirium. The overall documented incidence of delirium was 3.2% of hospitalizations or 8.2% of unique patients. Patients prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines were more likely to have documentation of delirium. ICD coding under-reported delirium while physician documentation was inaccurate in 26% (53/201) when compared with the chart review. Delirium was frequently undocumented or miscoded. Implementing a validated, universal screening tool for delirium may improve identification and clinical outcomes.

Delirium in the NICU: Risk or Reality?

Delirium is a frequent complication of critical illness in adult and pediatric populations and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the incidence, risk, symptoms, or treatment of delirium in the NICU. Only 4 cases of NICU delirium have been reported, but many pediatric studies include infants. The Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium tool has been validated in neonatal and infant populations for identification of delirium. Initial treatment should focus on identification and reversal of the cause, with pharmacologic management reserved for patients with symptoms that do not resolve or that significantly impact medical care. Routine use of intravenous haloperidol should be avoided because of the high incidence of serious adverse effects, but it may be considered in patients with significant symptoms who are unable to take oral medications. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone) appear to be efficacious with a low incidence of adverse effects. Risperidone has weight-based dosing and a liquid dosage form available, making it a good option for use in the NICU. Additional data from large cohorts of NICU patients routinely screened for delirium, and treated as indicated, are needed.

Implementing a Rapid, Two-Step Delirium Screening Protocol in Acute Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

An effective and efficient protocol for delirium identification is needed to improve health outcomes for older adults and reduce healthcare costs. This study describes the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of the ultra-brief confusion assessment method (UB-CAM), a rapid two-step delirium identification protocol (ultra-brief screen, followed by CAM in positives), field tested with hospitalized older adults (70+). A qualitative descriptive design using observational data collection and brief semi-structured interviews. An urban academic medical center and a community teaching hospital. Participants included 50 physician hospitalists, 189 registered nurses, and 83 nursing assistants (NAs). Field researchers guided by a modified multi-level implementation framework, collected observational data as participants administered the UB-CAM (n = 767). Thematic analysis was conducted on five observational categories: structural, organizational, patient, clinician, and innovation. Field notes and brief semi-structured interviews (n = 231) with clinicians, explored the utility, acceptability, and feasibility of the protocol, and supplemented the observations. The UB-CAM was generally positively received by all three clinician types. Six themes describe barriers and/or facilitators to implementing the UB-CAM: (1) physical setting and milieu; (2) practice environment; (3) integrating into role; (4) adaptive techniques; (5) patient responses; and (6) systematic assessment. The composition and interaction of the six themes determined if the theme was expressed as a barrier or facilitator, affirming the importance of context when implementing system-level delirium screening. This is one of the first studies to test a two-step process for delirium identification, and to involve NAs in screening, and the findings demonstrate overall support from clinicians for delirium identification, and describe the need for a multifaceted, contextualized, and systemic approach to implementation and evaluation of delirium screening.

Clinicians’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Delirium Detection and Management

Delirium is a serious and potentially life-threatening problem, but it remains clinically under-recognized. Various factors contribute to this under-recognition, including limited understanding of delirium, insufficient training and application of delirium assessments, potential stigma for the patient and increased workload for the clinician. As a part of an NIH funded study testing a rapid two-step delirium identification protocol at two hospitals in the U.S. (one urban and one rural), clinicians completed a 12-item survey to assess their knowledge and attitudes about delirium and their confidence in preventing and managing delirium. Survey response options followed a 5-point rating scale (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, strongly agree). The sample for this analysis included 399 clinicians (MDs=53; RNs=235; CNAs=111). Chi-square was used to test for group differences between clinician types. Less than half of the clinicians reported agreeing with the statement, “delirium is largely preventable” (MDs: 47%; RN: 44%; CNA: 41%, p-value=0.021). MDs and RNs indicated a high level of confidence in recognizing delirium while CNAs endorsed lower levels of confidence (MDs: 87%; RN: 81%; CNA: 65%, p-value=0.001). All types of clinicians reported lower confidence in managing delirium (MDs: 29%; RN: 36%; CNA: 44%, p-value=0.117). 47% of CNAs and 37% of RNs agreed there is a need for additional training in caring for persons with delirium while only 21% of MDs agreed (p = 0.031). Understanding how different types of clinicians think and feel about delirium will inform training and communication initiatives, clinical implementation, and research on best practices for delirium identification and management.

The Harmonization of Four Delirium Instruments

Delirium is a clinical syndrome characterized by acute cognitive dysfunction, which is pervasive in older persons. Delirium affects over 2.6 million Americans over age 65 annually. One major problem in detection of delirium is that over 40 different instruments have been created to identify delirium in different clinical settings. There is no single agreed upon reference standard instrument. In previous work, we performed a systematic review to identify the four most commonly cited and well-validated instruments for delirium identification. The aim of this study is to harmonize these four commonly used instruments: Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS), Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). We used data from three separate sources (N = 1623). Participants were rated by multiple and overlapping instruments across studies, allowing us to apply item response theory linking procedures. We fit generalized structural equation models, and found unidimensional factor models fit well. We found the instruments were highly correlated (all r > 0.9) and kappa statistics for delirium case identification were high (range: 0.89 to 0.95). We generated crosswalks to map sum scores on one instrument to another. Our results suggest the same underlying construct, propensity to delirium, is measured across the four instruments. The crosswalks facilitate comparison and combination for immediate clinical use or for future meta-analyses. In future steps, we will use our results to find the optimal cut-points for use across all instruments to identify delirium.

Delirium READI:(Researching Efficient Approaches for Delirium Identification): Clinician experiences and perspectives when screening for delirium in persons with dementia

AbstractBackgroundLess than half of all delirium in persons with dementia is identified. By 2050, 14 million older persons in the United States will have dementia. These individuals are more likely to be hospitalized than those without dementia, and more than 50% will experience delirium during hospitalization. Previous work suggests that delirium may accelerate the clinical course and trajectory of cognitive decline, and is associated with worse outcomes and suffering. Despite this evidence, we know little about clinician experience with screening and management of delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD). Therefore, we interviewed hospital‐based clinicians to inform implementation of hospital‐wide systematic delirium identification, including clinician knowledge and experience with DSD.MethodWe conducted in‐depth qualitative interviews in person and over the phone as part of a larger mixed methods study of N=934 (535 older adults and 399 clinicians) that tested a two‐step process for delirium identification using the Ultra‐brief two item delirium screen (UB‐2) and 3D‐CAM. We report on the qualitative analysis of 14 interviews with 6 physicians, 4 registered nurses and 4 nursing assistants who had screened for DSD in the larger study at two hospital study sites. Data were analyzed using coding and thematic analysis (Creswell, 2016). Interviews ranged in length from 14 to 47 minutes.ResultAlthough clinicians valued the quick tools to detect delirium, they described skepticism and challenges in evaluating DSD. One physician noted, "Many times I think healthcare providers, whether it's a doctor, a nurse, whatever, we just chalk up behavior in the hospital, "Oh, they're demented. They have dementia. You expect this [confusion]... People who are confused, they get up and they fall. Preliminary themes identified were: skepticism, bias and low expectations, stage of dementia as important, fluctuation and repeated screening, role of family in screening, nonverbal communication and cues, and knowing the person.ConclusionOur study suggests that clinicians lack knowledge and confidence in assessing for and managing DSD. Clinicians may still consider DSD to be “normal” in hospitalized patients with dementia. Future implementation studies should also address attitudes and knowledge regarding delirium assessment, management and prevention in DSD.

The Effect of Multiple Assessments on Delirium Detection: a Pilot Study.

BackgroundDelirium is characterized by fluctuating attention or arousal, with high prevalence in the orthopaedic ward. Our aim was to: 1) establish the prevalence of delirium on an orthopaedic ward, and 2) compare delirium prevalence using a single geriatrician assessment vs. multiple 3D-CAM (3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method) assessments during the day. We hypothesized that multiple assessments would increase the detection rate due to the fluctuating nature of delirium.MethodsComparative study conducted at an academic hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Participants included patients 65 years and older admitted to the orthopaedic ward (n=55). After a geriatrician made the first assessment of delirium by 3D-CAM on each patient, teams with specialized geriatrics training re-assessed participants up to four times. Delirium rates based on first assessment were compared to cumulative end-of-day rates to determine if detection increased with multiple assessments.ResultsThe prevalence of delirium was 30.9% (17 participants) using multiple assessments. Of these cases, 13 (76.4%) were detected in the initial geriatrician assessment. In patients with hip fractures, 70.6% (12 of 17) were identified as delirious by multiple assessments.ConclusionAs symptoms fluctuate, multiple daily CAM assessments may increase the identification of delirium in orthopaedic inpatients.

Nurses' experiences of delirium and how to identify delirium-A qualitative study.

AimDelirium is a serious, acute medical condition which places a heavy burden on the patient, his or her family and healthcare professionals. There have been only a limited number of studies to explore nurses' experiences of delirium and how delirium is identified in community care. The research questions of the study are as follows: “How do community care nurses' experience delirium?” and “How is delirium identified?”.DesignThis study has been designed as an explorative and descriptive study.MethodsA topic‐based interview guide was developed containing questions associated with the Registered Nurses' experiences of their meetings with people with delirium and their identification of delirium.ResultsNurses working in the community care need to know more about delirium as they play a key role in treatment. Our results also show that the participants have difficulty in establishing whether a patient is suffering from acute confusion/delirium, depression or dementia.

The CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC as measures of delirium severity in critically ill adult patients.

BackgroundIn clinical practice, a dichotomous approach to delirium identification may no longer be relevant when existing delirium screening tools measure a range of scores. The objective of this study was to compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit 7-item (CAM-ICU-7) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) as measures of the spectrum of delirium severity in critically ill adult patients.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 218 patients underwent 641 paired assessments by bedside nurses (ICDSC, as per usual care) and trained research assistants (CAM-ICU-7). Correlation between the CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC scores was evaluated. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between CAM-ICU-7 or ICDSC score and length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation (receipt, ≥96 hours).ResultsDelirium prevalence evaluated by the CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC were 46.3% (95% CI:39.7–53.0) and 34.4% (95% CI:28.3–41.0). Prevalence of less than clinical threshold symptoms of delirium evaluated by the CAM-ICU-7 (score: 1–2) and ICDSC (score: 1–3) were 30.3% (95%CI:24.5–36.7) and 50.9% (95%CI:44.3–57.6). The CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC had significant positive correlation (0.58, p<0.001). Agreement between the tools as measures of delirium was moderate (kappa = 0.51) and as measures of less than clinical threshold symptoms of delirium was fair (kappa = 0.21). Less than clinical threshold symptoms of delirium identified by the ICDSC, not CAM-ICU-7, were associated with prolonged length of ICU stay (≥7 days) in patients <65 years of age [Odds Ratio (OR) 9.2, 95% CI:2.5–34.0] and mechanical ventilation (receipt: OR 2.8, 95% CI:1.3–6.4; ≥96 hours: OR 6.6, 95% CI:1.9–22.9), when compared to patients with no delirium.ConclusionsThe CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC are measures of the spectrum of delirium severity that are closely correlated. Less than clinical threshold symptoms of delirium measure by the ICDSC is a better predictor of outcomes, when compared with the CAM-ICU-7.

Detecting Delirium: A Systematic Review of Identification Instruments for Non-ICU Settings.

Delirium 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. We 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. Two 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. Of 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. Four 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.

Preoperative serum biomarkers in the prediction of postoperative delirium following abdominal surgery.

Elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery have a high risk of developing postoperative delirium. This study aimed to explore risk factors for postoperative delirium by focusing on preoperative hematologic markers, and to develop a model that would be useful in predicting the occurrence of postoperative delirium. This retrospective study included patients aged ≥65 years who underwent elective abdominal surgery under general anesthesia from January 2017 to May 2019. Patients' demographics, hematologic data and intraoperative data were recorded. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-white blood cell ratio and prognostic nutritional index were calculated. We evaluated risk factors of postoperative delirium assessed using a chart-based method for identification of delirium and developed a predictive model using preoperative and intraoperative data. Of 931 eligible patients, 833 with a mean age of 73.9 years were included in the analysis. The rate of incidence of postoperative delirium was 7.3%. Age, duration of surgery and preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio or platelet-to-white blood cell ratio were statistically significant risk factors. The predictive model, which included age, duration of surgery and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, had the largest area under the curve of 0.77. Age, duration of surgery and preoperative platelet-to-white blood cell ratio or platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio are associated with the development of postoperative delirium. A predictive model, which includes age, duration of surgery and preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, is useful in predicting the development of postoperative delirium after elective abdominal surgery. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 1208-1212.