Delirium screening instruments.

Delirium in patients has well-documented adverse physical and mental outcomes. Delirium impairs patients' capacity to grasp and retain information, thus affecting their right to informed consent and active participation in treatment and care decisions. In Danish hospitals, delirium afflicts up to 50% of the elderly patients, yet it often goes unreported due to the absence of systematic screening. The selection of a screening tool should be contextually relevant. This review gives an overview of delirium screening instruments available in Danish, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Intensive care unit nurses' perception of three different methods for delirium screening: A survey (DELIS-3).

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in critically ill patients with detrimental effects in terms of increased morbidity, mortality, costs, and human suffering. Delirium detection and management depends on systematic screening for delirium, which can be challenging to implement in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore how nurses in the intensive care unit perceived the use of Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7), and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for delirium screening of patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, electronic-based survey of nurses' perceptions of delirium screening with the three different instruments for delirium screening. Nurses were asked to grade their perception of the usability of the three instruments and how well they were perceived to detect delirium and delirium symptom changes on a 1- to 6-point Likert scale. Open questions about perceived advantages and disadvantages of each instrument were analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven of 167 invited nurses completed the survey and rated the CAM-ICU-7 as faster and easier than the ICDSC, which was more nuanced and reflected changes in the patient's delirium better. Despite being rated as the fastest, easiest, and most used, the CAM-ICU provided less information and was considered inferior to the CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC. Using familiar instruments made delirium screening easier, but being able to grade and nuance the delirium assessment was experienced as important for clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Both the ICDSC and the CAM-ICU-7 were perceived well suited for detection of delirium and reflected changes in delirium intensity. The CAM-ICU was rated as fast and easy but inferior in its ability to grade and nuance the assessment of delirium. Emphasis on clinical meaningfulness and continued education in delirium screening are necessary for adherence to delirium management guidelines.

Cognitive function and health-related quality of life 1 year after acute brain injury: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are well-established sequelae of critical illness. Studies on survivors of critical illness have found delirium to be a predictor of these conditions, but evidence regarding survivors of acute brain injury is sparse. We aimed to explore if delirium duration was associated with 1-year cognitive impairment and reduced HRQoL in patients with acute brain injury. METHOD: Intensive care unit (ICU) delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Cognitive status was assessed using the Repeatable Battery for Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and HRQoL using the European Quality of Life 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). We used a multiple linear regression for testing the association of delirium duration with cognitive impairment and quality of life, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-seven survivors of acute brain injury participated in follow-up and 35 completed RBANS. Delirium was present in 39 of 47 (83%) with a median duration of 4 days. Delirium duration did not predict cognitive impairment (95% CI -4.1 to 0.5) or lower HRQoL (95% CI -1.4 to 2.7). Moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment was present in 17 of 35 (49%) participants, and they had a mean EQ-5D health visual analogue scale of 70.9 vs 81.6 for the Danish age-matched norm. CONCLUSIONS: Our sample did not demonstrate an association between delirium and 1-year cognitive impairment or reduced HRQoL. Still, a large proportion of the participants were cognitively impaired, and their quality of life was lower compared to norm. Larger studies are necessary to explore these associations further.

Delirium prevalence and prevention in patients with acute brain injury: A prospective before-and-after intervention study.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge regarding delirium prevention in patients with acute brain injury remains limited. We tested the hypothesis that an intervention bundle which targeted sedation, sleep, pain, and mobilisation would reduce delirium in patients with acute brain injury. DESIGN: A prospective before-after intervention study: a five-month phase of standard care was followed by a six-month intervention phase. SETTING: The neuro-intensive care unit, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist was used to detect delirium. Primary outcome was delirium duration; secondary outcomes were delirium prevalence, ICU length of stay and one year mortality. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included during the standard care phase, and 50 during the intervention phase. Delirium was present in 90% of patients in the standard care group and 88% in the intervention group (p = 1.0), and time with delirium was 4 days vs 3.5 days (p = 0.26), respectively. Also, ICU length of stay (13 vs. 10.5 days (p = 0.4)) and the one year mortality (21% vs 12% (p = 0.38))) were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of delirium in patients with acute brain injury. The intervention bundle did not significantly reduce prevalence or duration of delirium, ICU length of stay or one year mortality.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function. RESULTS: We included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents. CONCLUSION: Based on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016046628.

Delirium assessment in neuro-critically ill patients: A validation study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is underinvestigated in the neuro-critically ill, although the harmful effect of delirium is well established in patients in medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU).To detect delirium, a valid tool is needed. We hypothesized that delirium screening would be feasible in patients with acute brain injury and we aimed to validate and compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist against clinical International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria as reference. METHODS: Nurses assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist in adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to the Neurointensive care unit (Neuro-ICU), Copenhagen University Hospital, if their Richmond agitation-sedation scale score was -2 or above. As the reference, a team of psychiatrist assessed patients using the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria. RESULTS: We enrolled 74 patients, of whom 25 (34%) were deemed unable to assess by the psychiatrists, leaving 49 (66%) for final analysis. Sensitivity and specificity for the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 59% (95% CI: 41-75) and 56% (95% CI: 32-78), respectively, and 85% (95% CI: 70-94) and 75% (95% CI: 51-92), respectively, for the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist may be a valid tool and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU is less suitable for delirium detection for patients in the Neuro-ICU. In the neuro-critically ill, delirium screening is challenged by limited feasibility.

Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is high. Delirium has been associated with morbidity and mortality including more ventilator days, longer ICU stay, increased long-term mortality and cognitive impairment. Thus, the burden of delirium for patients, relatives and societies is considerable. Today, reviews of randomised clinical trials are produced in large scales sometimes making it difficult to get an overview of the available evidence. A preliminary search identified several reviews investigating the effects of pharmacological interventions for the management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. The conclusions of the reviews showed conflicting results. Despite this unclear evidence, antipsychotics, in particular, haloperidol is often the recommended pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. The objective of this overview of reviews is to critically assess the evidence of reviews of randomised clinical trials on the effect of pharmacological management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search for reviews in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Two authors will independently select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will present the data as a narrative synthesis and summarise the main results of the included reviews. In addition, we will present an overview of the bias risk assessment of the systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results of this overview may establish a way forward to find and update or to design a high quality systematic review assessing the effects of the most promising pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42016046628 .

Patients' lived experiences of a reduced intake of food and drinks during illness: a literature review.

AIM: This study aims to identify patients' lived experiences of having a reduced intake of food and drink during illness, through a literature review. METHODS: Scientific studies were selected through a systematic search of CINAHL, PubMed, SweMed, British Nursing Index, Psycinfo and EMBASE. A deductive thematic analysis was performed on the studies included. The analysis provided three main themes: (i) serving of food and drink - patient experiences. (ii) Modifications related to illness - patient experiences. (iii) Nutritional care provided by healthcare professionals nutritional care - patient experiences. FINDINGS: Generally speaking, the findings showed high satisfaction with the food served at hospitals. However, patients' individual tastes and preferences as to when and where to eat were found to affect their intake of food and drink. Physical changes because of illness were stated as the main reason for the patients' lived experiences of a reduced intake of food and drink. These experiences seemed to be related to negative feelings, such as anxiety and shame during meals. Furthermore, the literature review revealed a lack of professional assistance during meals and insufficient guidance on how to handle specific nutritional problems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients expect committed nursing care in regard to nutritional advice during illness and assistance in meal-related situations. Nurses need to refocus on fundamental caring.