Delirium screening in the emergency department: evaluation and intervention.

BACKGROUND: Between 8-17% of older adults, and up to 40% of those arriving from nursing homes, present with delirium upon admission to the Emergency Department (ED). However, this condition often remains undiagnosed by ED medical staff. We investigated the prevalence of delirium among patients aged 65 and older admitted to the ED and assessed the impact of a prospective study aimed at increasing awareness. METHODS: The study was structured into four phases: a "pre-intervention period" (T0); an "awareness period" (T1), during which information about delirium and its diagnosis was disseminated to ED staff; a "screening period" (T2), in which dedicated evaluators screened ED patients aged 65 and older; and a "post-intervention period" (T3), following the departure of the evaluators. Delirium screening was conducted using the Brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) questionnaire. RESULTS: During the T0 and T1 periods, the rate of delirium diagnosed by ED staff was below 1%. The evaluators identified a delirium rate of 14.9% among the screened older adults during the T2 period, whereas the rate among those assessed by ED staff was between 1.6% and 1.9%. Following the evaluators' departure in the T3 period, the rate of delirium diagnosis decreased to 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores that a significant majority of older adult delirium cases remain undetected by ED staff. Despite efforts to increase awareness, the rate of diagnosis did not significantly improve. While the presence of dedicated delirium evaluators slightly increased the diagnosis rate among patients assessed by ED staff, this rate reverted to pre-intervention levels after the evaluators left. These findings emphasize the necessity of implementing mandatory delirium screening during ED triage and throughout the patient's stay.

Impact of an Antibiotic Stewardship Program on the Incidence of Resistant Escherichia coli: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria increase hospitalizations and mortality rates; antibiotic pressure increases resistance rates. We evaluated the impact of the antibiotics stewardship program (ASP) on Escherichia coli resistance rates, evaluating all antibiotic use and patients with positive cultures hospitalized between 2011 and 2018. Data on antibiotics were collected quarterly as the defined daily dose (DDD)/100 days hospitalization. In 2014, an intervention was introduced, targeting the reduction of overall antibiotic use as well as specifically targeting quinolones and other broad-spectrum antibiotics. Using interrupted time series analysis (ITS), we compared the rates and trends of antibiotic use and resistant E. coli. We included 6001 patients, 3182 pre-ASP and 2819 post-ASP. We observed significant changes in absolute numbers as well as in trends for use of DDD/100 days of all antibiotics by 31% from 76 to 52, and by 52% from 10.4 to 4.9 for quinolones. ITS demonstrated that before the ASP intervention, there was a slope pattern for increased E. coli resistance to antibiotics. This slope was reversed following the intervention for quinolones -1.52, aminoglycosides -2.04, and amoxicillin clavulanate (amox/clav) -1.76; the effect of the intervention was observed as early as three months after the intervention and continued to decrease over time until the end of the study, at 48 months. We conclude that the ASP can positively impact the resistance rate of Gram-negative infections over time, regardless of the targeted combination of antibiotics, if the overall use is reduced.

The Kinetics of an Antibiotic Stewardship Intervention: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the kinetics and different phases of a successful antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) intervention. METHODS: We analyzed the trends of quarterly antibiotic use measured in defined daily dose (DDD)/100 days hospitalization using the Joinpoint Regression Program and interrupted time series analysis to objectively identify shifts in the trends of antibiotic use. We correlated these changes in trends with the introduction of a hospital-wide ASP intervention. RESULTS: The ASP intervention reduced the overall antibiotic use by 33%, from a prior steady state of 76.5 DDD/100 days hospitalization to a post-intervention steady state of 51.2 DDD/100 days hospitalization (p < 0.001). We identified four distinct phases in the trends: prior steady state (A), early intervention (B), accelerated phase (C), and post steady state (D). From A to B a change of slope (-1.46) [SE 0.37, 95% CI -2.23, -0.69 (p = 0.002)]; B to C, a further decrease of slope (-4.70) [SE 0.64, 95% CI -6.03, -3.37 (p = 0.001)]; between periods C and D, straightening out of the slope (+ 6.84) [SE 0.55, 95% CI 5.70, 7.98 (p < 0.001)] to a new post-intervention steady state. It took 1.5 years after completion of the intervention to reach the new steady state. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that ASP interventions require time to achieve the maximal effect. Successful interventions require physicians to adapt new prescribing behaviors and gain confidence in the change; this adaptation can be a prolonged process and might even take years after the introduction of the ASP. These factors should be considered when planning and implementing ASP interventions.