A systematic review of studies reporting on neuropsychological and functional domains used for assessment of recovery from delirium in acute hospital patients.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing for recovery in delirium is essential in guiding ongoing investigation and treatment. Yet, there is little scrutiny and no research or clinical consensus on how recovery should be measured. We reviewed studies which used tests of neuropsychological domains and functional ability to track recovery of delirium longitudinally in acute hospital settings. METHODS/DESIGN: We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), from inception to October 14th , 2022. Inclusion criteria were: adult acute hospital patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with delirium by a validated tool; 1+ repeat assessment using an assessment tool measuring domains of delirium/functional recovery ≤7 days from baseline. Two reviewers independently screened articles, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. A narrative data synthesis was completed. RESULTS: From 6533 screened citations, we included 39 papers (reporting 32 studies), with 2370 participants with delirium. Studies reported 21 tools with an average of four repeat assessments including baseline (range 2-10 assessments within ≤7 days), measuring 15 specific domains. General cognition, functional ability, arousal, attention and psychotic features were most commonly assessed for longitudinal change. Risk of bias was moderate to high for most studies. CONCLUSIONS: There was no standard approach for tracking change in specific domains of delirium. The methodological heterogeneity of studies was too high to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of assessment tools to measure delirium recovery. This highlights the need for standardised methods for assessing recovery from delirium.

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Background: A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery. Objective: To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery. Design: Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care. Methods: The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery. Results: Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery. Conclusions: The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.