Attention! A good bedside test for delirium?

BACKGROUND: Routine delirium screening could improve delirium detection, but it remains unclear as to which screening tool is most suitable. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of the following screening methods (either individually or in combination) in the detection of delirium: MOTYB (months of the year backwards); SSF (Spatial Span Forwards); evidence of subjective or objective 'confusion'. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of general hospital adult inpatients in a large tertiary referral hospital. Screening tests were performed by junior medical trainees. Subsequently, two independent formal delirium assessments were performed: first, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) followed by the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 (DRS-R98). DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) criteria were used to assign delirium diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for each screening method. RESULTS: 265 patients were included. The most precise screening method overall was achieved by simultaneously performing MOTYB and assessing for subjective/objective confusion (sensitivity 93.8%, 95% CI 82.8 to 98.6; specificity 84.7%, 95% CI 79.2 to 89.2). In older patients, MOTYB alone was most accurate, whereas in younger patients, a simultaneous combination of SSF (cut-off 4) with either MOTYB or assessment of subjective/objective confusion was best. In every case, addition of the CAM as a second-line screening step to improve specificity resulted in considerable loss in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that simple attention tests may be useful in delirium screening. MOTYB used alone was the most accurate screening test in older people.

The Irish National Adverse Event Study-2 (INAES-2): longitudinal trends in adverse event rates in the Irish healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the prevalence and nature of adverse events in acute Irish hospitals in 2015 and to assess the impact of the National Clinical Programmes and the National Clinical Guidelines on the prevalence of adverse events by comparing these results with the previously published data from 2009. DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 1605 admissions to eight Irish hospitals in 2015, using identical methods to those used in 2009. RESULTS: The percentage of admissions associated with one or more adverse events was unchanged (p=0.48) at 14% (95% CI=10.4% to 18.4%) in 2015 compared with 12.2% (95% CI=9.5% to 15.5%) in 2009. Similarly, the prevalence of preventable adverse events was unchanged (p=0.3) at 7.4% (95% CI=5.3% to 10.5%) in 2015 compared with 9.1% (95% CI=6.9% to 11.9%) in 2009. The incidence densities of preventable adverse events were 5.6 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=3.4 to 8.0) in 2015 and 7.7 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=5.8 to 9.6) in 2009 (p=0.23). However, the percentage of preventable adverse events due to hospital-associated infections decreased to 22.2% (95% CI=15.2% to 31.1%) in 2015 from 33.1% (95% CI=25.6% to 41.6%) in 2009 (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Adverse event rates remained stable between 2009 and 2015. The percentage of preventable adverse events related to hospital-associated infection decreased, which may represent a positive impact of the related national programmes and guidelines.

National and Institutional Trends in Adverse Events Over Time: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Longitudinal Retrospective Patient Record Review Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the implementation of large-scale patient safety initiatives have been successful in reducing overall and preventable adverse event rates in hospital inpatients. DESIGN: The design used in this study was systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA RESOURCES: We followed our published protocol (PROSPERO [CRD42019140058]) and searched the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to February 2020. The reference lists of eligible studies were also searched. ELIGIBILITY: All longitudinal retrospective record review studies that examined adverse event rates before and after the introduction of patient safety initiatives in hospital inpatients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction, quality, and risk of bias assessment were carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Information on study design, setting, demographics, interventions, and safety outcome measures was extracted. RESULTS: A total of 3894 articles were screened, and 7 articles met the eligibility criteria for our systematic review with 5 of these providing sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The degree of heterogeneity was high among studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated a minimal risk reduction in overall adverse event rates of 0.017 (95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.032) when the lower-quality studies were excluded, with one adverse event being prevented for every 59 hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are significant when the large numbers of admissions to a hospital every year are considered. Given the low numbers of large-scale implementation studies, there is a need for more research on the effectiveness of patient safety initiatives to further assess the impact of such initiatives on adverse events.

Treating COVID-19 in the nursing home setting: an integrated approach for a complex and susceptible cohort.

Our patient, a nursing home resident, was reviewed by our frailty outreach service in November 2020. She initially was diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in September 2020 during an outbreak in her nursing home. On this occasion, she again tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Our case report describes the resident's poor immune response indicated by a low IgG level after her initial COVID infection as well as reinfection with a 'non-variant' SARS-CoV-2 lineage (B.1.177). The case describes the importance of integration of community and secondary care. The nursing home received close monitoring and nurse supervision for the detection of potential deterioration of the patient. Exit-seeking behaviour by nursing home residents was limited effectively. The issues of low immune response to COVID-19 in older people and the emergence of variants of concern will continue to pose a threat to this susceptible group.