The Delphi Delirium Management Algorithms. A practical tool for clinicians, the result of a modified Delphi expert consensus approach.

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.

Delirium detection tools show varying completion rates and positive score rates when used at scale in routine practice in general hospital settings: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple short delirium detection tools have been validated in research studies and implemented in routine care, but there has been little study of these tools in real-world conditions. This systematic review synthesized literature reporting completion rates and/or delirium positive score rates of detection tools in large clinical populations in general hospital settings. METHODS: PROSPERO (CRD42022385166). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and gray literature were searched from 1980 to December 31, 2022. Included studies or audit reports used a validated delirium detection tool performed directly with the patient as part of routine care in large clinical populations (n ≥ 1000) within a general acute hospital setting. Narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two research studies and four audit reports were included. Tools used alone or in combination were the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), 4 'A's Test (4AT), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS), Brief CAM (bCAM), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC), and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Populations and settings varied and tools were used at different stages and frequencies in the patient journey, including on admission only; inpatient, daily or more frequently; on admission and as inpatient; inpatient post-operatively. Tool completion rates ranged from 19% to 100%. Admission positive score rates ranged from: CAM 8%-51%; 4AT 13%-20%. Inpatient positive score rates ranged from: CAM 2%-20%, DOSS 6%-42%, and NuDESC 5-13%. Postoperative positive score rates were 21% and 28% (4AT). All but two studies had moderate-high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of delirium detection tool implementation in large acute patient populations found clinically important variability in tool completion rates, and in delirium positive score rates relative to expected delirium prevalence. This study highlights a need for greater reporting and analysis of relevant healthcare systems data. This is vital to advance understanding of effective delirium detection in routine care.

Advancing specificity in delirium: The delirium subtyping initiative.

BACKGROUND: Delirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long-term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology. METHODS: The Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts. RESULTS: Meeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium-spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations. DISCUSSION: The DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes. HIGHLIGHTS: Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning.

Update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium in adult patients.

Postoperative delirium (POD) remains a common, dangerous and resource-consuming adverse event but is often preventable. The whole peri-operative team can play a key role in its management. This update to the 2017 ESAIC Guideline on the prevention of POD is evidence-based and consensus-based and considers the literature between 01 April 2015, and 28 February 2022. The search terms of the broad literature search were identical to those used in the first version of the guideline published in 2017. POD was defined in accordance with the DSM-5 criteria. POD had to be measured with a validated POD screening tool, at least once per day for at least 3 days starting in the recovery room or postanaesthesia care unit on the day of surgery or, at latest, on postoperative day 1. Recent literature confirmed the pathogenic role of surgery-induced inflammation, and this concept reinforces the positive role of multicomponent strategies aimed to reduce the surgical stress response. Although some putative precipitating risk factors are not modifiable (length of surgery, surgical site), others (such as depth of anaesthesia, appropriate analgesia and haemodynamic stability) are under the control of the anaesthesiologists. Multicomponent preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative preventive measures showed potential to reduce the incidence and duration of POD, confirming the pivotal role of a comprehensive and team-based approach to improve patients' clinical and functional status.

Does the time to surgery influence outcomes for patients with a hip fracture who undergo total hip arthroplasty?

Aims: Surgery is often delayed in patients who sustain a hip fracture and are treated with a total hip arthroplasty (THA), in order to await appropriate surgical expertise. There are established links between delay and poorer outcomes in all patients with a hip fracture, but there is little information about the impact of delay in the less frail patients who undergo THA. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of delayed surgery on outcomes in these patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using data from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit between May 2016 and December 2020. Only patients undergoing THA were included, with categorization according to surgical treatment within 36 hours of admission (≤ 36 hours = 'acute group' vs > 36 hours = 'delayed' group). Those with delays due to being "medically unfit" were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival. Costs were estimated in relation to the differences in the lengths of stay. Results: A total of 1,375 patients underwent THA, with 397 (28.9%) having surgery delayed by > 36 hours. There were no significant differences in the age, sex, residence prior to admission, and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation for those with, and those without, delayed surgery. Both groups had statistically similar 30-day (99.7% vs 99.3%; p = 0.526) and 60-day (99.2% vs 99.0%; p = 0.876) survival. There was, however, a significantly longer length of stay for the delayed group (acute: 7.0 vs delayed: 8.9 days; p < 0.001; overall: 8.7 vs 10.2 days; p = 0.002). Delayed surgery did not significantly affect the rates of 30-day readmission (p = 0.085) or discharge destination (p = 0.884). The results were similar following adjustment for potential confounding factors. The estimated additional cost due to delayed surgery was £1,178 per patient. Conclusion: Delayed surgery does not appear to be associated with increased mortality in patients with an intracapsular hip fracture who undergo THA, compared with those who are treated with a hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation. Those with delayed surgery, however, have a longer length of stay, with financial consequences. Clinicians must balance ethical considerations, the local provision of orthopaedic services, and optimization of outcomes when determining the need to delay surgery in a patient with a hip fracture awaiting THA.

Completion of the Emergency Department "Big 6" in Patients with an Acute Hip Fracture Is Associated with a Lower Mortality Risk and Shorter Length of Hospital Stay.

The aims of this study were to assess whether completion of the emergency department (ED) Big 6 interventions (provision of pain relief, screening for delirium, early warning score (EWS) system, full blood investigation and electrocardiogram, intravenous fluids therapy, and pressure area care) in those presenting with an acute hip fracture were associated with mortality risk and length of acute hospital stay. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken. All patients aged ≥50 years that were admitted with a hip fracture via the ED at a single centre during a 42-month period were included. A total of 3613 patients (mean age 80.9; 71% female) were included. The mean follow up was 607 (range 240 to 1542) days. A total of 1180 (32.7%) patients had all six components completed. Pain relief (90.8%) was the most frequently completed component and pressure area assessment (57.6%) was the least. Completion of each of the individual Big 6 components, except for pressure areas assessment, were associated with a significantly (p ≤ 0.041) lower mortality risk at the 90-days, one-year and final follow-up. The completion of all components of the Big 6 was associated with a significantly (2.4 hours, p = 0.002) shorter time to theatre. Increasing number of Big 6 components completed were independently associated with a lower mortality risk: when all six were completed, the hazard ratio was 0.64 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78, p < 0.001). Completion of an increasing number of Big 6 components was independently associated with shorter length of hospital stay and completion of all six was associated with a 2.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 3.8)-day shorter acute stay. The findings provide an evidence base to support the ongoing use of the Big 6 in the ED.

Call to action: a five nations consensus on the use of intravenous zoledronate after hip fracture.

Currently in the UK and Ireland, after a hip fracture most patients do not receive bone protection medication to reduce the risk of refracture. Yet randomised controlled trial data specifically examining patients with hip fracture have shown that intravenous zoledronate reduces refracture risk by a third. Despite this evidence, use of intravenous zoledronate is highly variable following a hip fracture; many hospitals are providing this treatment, whilst most are currently not. A range of clinical uncertainties, doubts over the evidence base and practical concerns are cited as reasons. This paper discusses these concerns and provides guidance from expert consensus, aiming to assist orthogeriatricians, pharmacists and health services managers establish local protocols to deliver this highly clinically and cost-effective treatment to patients before they leave hospital, in order to reduce costly re-fractures in this frail population.

Trends in delirium coding rates in older hospital inpatients in England and Scotland: full population data comprising 7.7M patients per year show substantial increases between 2012 and 2020.

Background: Little information is available on change in delirium coding rates over time in major healthcare systems. We examined trends in delirium discharge coding rates in older patients in hospital admissions to the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Scotland between 2012 and 2020. Methods: Hospital administrative coding data were sourced from NHS Digital England and Public Health Scotland. We examined rates of delirium (F05 from ICD-10) in patients aged ≥70 years in 5 year and ≥90 age bands. Results: There were approximately 7,000,000 discharges/year in England and 700,000/year in Scotland. Substantially increased delirium coding was observed for all age bands between 2012/2013 and 2019/2020 (p<0.001, Mann Kendall's tau). In the ≥90 age band, there was a 4-fold increase between 2012 and 2020. Conclusion: Delirium coding rates have shown large increases in the NHS in England and Scotland, likely reflecting several factors including policy initiatives, detection tool implementation and education.

A rehabilitation intervention to improve recovery after an episode of delirium in adults over 65 years (RecoverED): study protocol for a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects over 20% of all hospitalised older adults. Delirium is associated with a number of adverse outcomes following hospital admission including cognitive decline, anxiety and depression, increased mortality and care needs. Previous research has addressed prevention of delirium in hospitals and care homes, and there are guidelines on short-term treatment of delirium during admission. However, no studies have addressed the problem of longer-term recovery after delirium and it is currently unknown whether interventions to improve recovery after delirium are effective and cost-effective. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to test a new, theory-informed rehabilitation intervention (RecoverED) in older adults delivered following a hospital admission complicated by delirium to determine whether (a) the intervention is acceptable to individuals with delirium and (b) a definitive trial and parallel economic evaluation of the intervention are feasible. METHODS: The study is a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study of a rehabilitation intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Sixty participants with delirium (aged > 65 years old) and carer pairs will be recruited from six NHS acute hospitals across the UK. All pairs will be offered the intervention, with follow-up assessments conducted at 3 months and 6 months post-discharge home. The intervention will be delivered in participants' own homes by therapists and rehabilitation support workers for up to 10 intervention sessions over 12 weeks. The intervention will be tailored to individual needs, and the chosen intervention plan and goals will be discussed and agreed with participants and carers. Quantitative data on reach, retention, fidelity and dose will be collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. The feasibility outcomes that will be used to determine whether the study meets the criteria for progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) include recruitment, delivery of the intervention, retention, data collection and acceptability of outcome measures. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverED intervention for helping the longer-term recovery of people with delirium compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The feasibility study was registered: ISRCTN15676570.

Delirium in hip fracture patients admitted from home during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with higher mortality, longer total length of stay, need for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation, and readmission to acute services.

Aims: Delirium is associated with adverse outcomes following hip fracture, but the prevalence and significance of delirium for the prognosis and ongoing rehabilitation needs of patients admitted from home is less well studied. Here, we analyzed relationships between delirium in patients admitted from home with 1) mortality; 2) total length of hospital stay; 3) need for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation; and 4) hospital readmission within 180 days. Methods: This observational study used routine clinical data in a consecutive sample of hip fracture patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted to a single large trauma centre during the COVID-19 pandemic between 1 March 2020 and 30 November 2021. Delirium was prospectively assessed as part of routine care by the 4 A's Test (4AT), with most assessments performed in the emergency department. Associations were determined using logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, COVID-19 infection within 30 days, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Results: A total of 1,821 patients were admitted, with 1,383 (mean age 79.5 years; 72.1% female) directly from home. Overall, 87 patients (4.8%) were excluded due to missing 4AT scores. Delirium prevalence in the whole cohort was 26.5% (460/1,734): 14.1% (189/1,340) in the subgroup of patients admitted from home, and 68.8% (271/394) in the remaining patients (comprising care home residents and inpatients when fracture occurred). In patients admitted from home, delirium was associated with a 20-day longer total length of stay (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, delirium was associated with higher mortality at 180 days (odds ratio (OR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.54); p = 0.013), requirement for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation (OR 2.80 (95% CI 1.97 to 3.96); p < 0.001), and readmission to hospital within 180 days (OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.15); p = 0.041). Conclusion: Delirium affects one in seven patients with a hip fracture admitted directly from home, and is associated with adverse outcomes in these patients. Delirium assessment and effective management should be a mandatory part of standard hip fracture care.

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.

COVID-19 is associated with increased care needs and a decreased likelihood of returning home following a hip fracture: The IMPACT frailty study.

PURPOSE: The primary aim was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on frailty in patients surviving a hip fracture. Secondary aims were to assess impact of COVID-19 on (i) length of stay (LoS) and post-discharge care needs, (ii) readmissions, and (iii) likelihood of returning to own home. METHODS: This propensity score-matched case-control study was conducted in a single centre between 01/03/20-30/11/21. A 'COVID-positive' group of 68 patients was matched to 141 'COVID-negative' patients. 'Index' and 'current' Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores were assigned for frailty at admission and at follow-up. Data were extracted from validated records and included: demographics, injury factors, COVID-19 status, delirium status, discharge destination, and readmissions. For subgroup analysis controlling for vaccination availability, the periods 1 March 2020-30 November 2020 and 1 February 2021-30 November 2021 were considered pre-/post-vaccine periods. RESULTS: Median age was 83.0 years, 155/209 (74.2%) were female and median follow-up was 479 days (interquartile range [IQR] 311). There was an equivalent median increase in CFS in both groups (+1.00 [IQR 1.00-2.00, p = 0.472]). However, adjusted analysis demonstrated COVID-19 was independently associated with a greater magnitude change (Beta coefficient [ß] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.00-0.54, p = 0.05). COVID-19 in the post-vaccine availability period was associated with a smaller increase versus pre-vaccine (ß -0.64, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.09, p = 0.023). COVID-19 was independently associated with increased acute LoS (ß 4.40, 95% CI 0.22-8.58, p = 0.039), total LoS (ß 32.87, 95% CI 21.42-44.33, p < 0.001), readmissions (ß 0.71, 95% CI 0.04-1.38, p = 0.039), and a four-fold increased likelihood of pre-fracture home-dwelling patients failing to return home (odds ratio 4.52, 95% CI 2.08-10.34, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture patients that survived a COVID-19 infection had increased frailty, longer LoS, more readmissions, and higher care needs. The health and social care burden is likely to be higher than prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings should inform prognostication, discharge-planning, and service design to meet the needs of these patients.

Extremes of baseline cognitive function determine the severity of delirium: a population study.

Although delirium is a significant clinical and public health problem, little is understood about how specific vulnerabilities underlie the severity of its presentation. Our objective was to quantify the relationship between baseline cognition and subsequent delirium severity. We prospectively investigated a population-representative sample of 1510 individuals aged ≥70 years, of whom 209 (13.6%) were hospitalized across 371 episodes (1999 person-days assessment). Baseline cognitive function was assessed using the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, supplemented by verbal fluency measures. We estimated the relationship between baseline cognition and delirium severity [Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS)] and abnormal arousal (Observational Scale of Level of Arousal), adjusted by age, sex, frailty and illness severity. We conducted further analyses examining presentations to specific hospital settings and common precipitating aetiologies. The median time from baseline cognitive assessment to admission was 289 days (interquartile range 130 to 47 days). In admitted patients, delirium was present on at least 1 day in 45% of admission episodes. The average number of days with delirium (consecutively positive assessments) was 3.9 days. Elective admissions accounted for 88 bed days (4.4%). In emergency (but not elective) admissions, we found a non-linear U-shaped relationship between baseline global cognition and delirium severity using restricted cubic splines. Participants with baseline cognition 2 standard deviations below average (z-score = -2) had a mean MDAS score of 14 points (95% CI 10 to 19). Similarly, those with baseline cognition z-score = + 2 had a mean MDAS score of 7.9 points (95% CI 4.9 to 11). Individuals with average baseline cognition had the lowest MDAS scores. The association between baseline cognition and abnormal arousal followed a comparable pattern. C-reactive protein ≥20 mg/l and serum sodium <125 mM/l were associated with more severe delirium. Baseline cognition is a critical determinant of the severity of delirium and associated changes in arousal. Emergency admissions with lowest and highest baseline cognition who develop delirium should receive enhanced clinical attention.

The Delirium Interview as a new reference standard in studies on delirium assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: The reference standard in studies on delirium assessment tools is usually based on the clinical judgment of only one delirium expert and may be concise, unstandardized, or not specified at all. This multicenter study investigated the performance of the Delirium Interview, a new reference standard for studies on delirium assessment tools allowing classification of delirium based on written reports. METHODS: We tested the diagnostic accuracy of our standardized Delirium Interview by comparing delirium assessments of the reported results with live assessments. Our reference, the live assessment, was performed by two delirium experts and one well-trained researcher who registered the results. Their delirium assessment was compared to the majority vote of three other independent delirium experts who judged the rapportage of the Delirium Interview. Our total pool consisted of 13 delirium experts with an average of 13 ± 8 years of experience. RESULTS: We included 98 patients (62% male, mean age 69 ± 12 years), of whom 56 (57%) intensive care units (ICUs) patients, 22 (39%) patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) < 0 and 26 (27%) non-verbal assessments. The overall prevalence of delirium was 28%. The Delirium Interview had a sensitivity of 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71%-98%) and specificity of 82% (95% CI: 71%-90%), compared to the diagnosis of an independent panel of two delirium experts and one researcher who examined the patients themselves. Negative and positive predictive values were 95% (95% CI: 86%-0.99%), respectively, 66% (95% CI: 49%-80%). Stratification into ICU and non-ICU patients yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The Delirium Interview is a feasible reference method for large study cohorts evaluating delirium assessment tools since experts could assess delirium with high accuracy without seeing the patient at the bedside.

Diagnostic accuracy of the "4 A's Test" delirium screening tool for the postoperative cardiac surgery ward.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is prevalent and underdetected among cardiac surgery patients on the postoperative ward. This study aimed to validate the 4 A's Test delirium screening tool and evaluate its accuracy both when used by research assistants and when subsequently implemented by nursing staff on the ward. METHODS: This single-center, prospective observational study evaluated the performance of the 4 A's Test administered by research assistants (phase 1) and nursing staff (phase 2). Assessments were undertaken during the patients' first 3 postoperative days on the postcardiac surgery ward along with previous routine nurse-led Confusion Assessment Method assessments. These index tests were compared with a reference standard diagnosis of delirium based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition criteria. Surveys regarding delirium screening were administered to nurses pre- and postimplementation of the 4 A's Test in phase 2 of the study. RESULTS: In phase 1, a total of 137 patients were enrolled, of whom 24.8% experienced delirium on the postoperative cardiac ward. The 4 A's Test had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval, 73-93) and a specificity of 90% (95% confidence interval, 85-93) compared with the reference standard. The nurse-assessed Confusion Assessment Method had a sensitivity of 23% (95% confidence interval, 13-37) and specificity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 99-100). In phase 2, nurses (n = 51) screened 179 patients for delirium using the 4 A's Test. Compared with the reference rater, the 4 A's Test had a sensitivity of 58% (95% confidence interval, 28-85) and specificity of 94% (95% confidence interval, 85-98). Postimplementation, 64% of nurses thought that the 4 A's Test improved their confidence in delirium detection, and 76% of nurses would consider routine 4 A's Test use. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 A's Test demonstrated moderate sensitivity and high specificity to detect delirium in a real-world setting after cardiac surgery on the postoperative ward. A modified model of use with less frequent administration, along with increased engagement of the postoperative team, is recommended to improve early delirium detection on the cardiac surgery postoperative ward.

Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments.

Delirium presents formidable challenges: it affects one in four of older hospitalised adults, greatly elevates the risk of multiple short- and long-term complications including dementia and causes significant distress. Delirium care remains generally poor. Yet, there are clear grounds for optimism; the last decade has seen impactful policy advances and a tripling of research output. Here, we highlight three linked areas which have strong potential to transform delirium practice and knowledge in the near term. Delirium-related distress is strikingly underrepresented in practice guidance and research. Proactive recognition combined with effective clinical responses based on good communication provides a critical and largely untapped opportunity to improve care. Delirium epidemiology research is well positioned to produce novel insights through advanced prospective designs in populations such as emergency medical patients with detailed pre-, intra- and post-delirium assessments allied with fluid, imaging and other biomarkers. Research-grade assessment of delirium currently involves a chaotic array of tools, methods and diagnostic algorithms. Areas for development: expand and analytically distinguish the range of features assessed (including distress), optimise feature assessment including use of validated neuropsychological tests where possible, produce standardised algorithms which articulate explicit pathways from features to diagnosis, and create new fine-grained approaches to the measurement of severity. Delirium practice and knowledge show accelerating growth. This is encouraging but much of the necessary progress is still to come. Innovation in these three highlighted areas, as well as many others, will open up exciting possibilities in enhancing the care of patients with this common and often devastating condition.

A nationwide study of blood transfusion in hip fracture patients : linked analysis from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine perioperative blood transfusion practice, and associations with clinical outcomes, in a national cohort of hip fracture patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using linked data from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service between May 2016 and December 2020. All patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted to a Scottish hospital with a hip fracture were included. Assessment of the factors independently associated with red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) during admission was performed, alongside determination of the association between RBCT and hip fracture outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 23,266 individual patient records from 18 hospitals were included. The overall rate of blood transfusion during admission was 28.7% (n = 6,685). There was inter-hospital variation in transfusion rate, ranging from 16.6% to 37.4%. Independent perioperative factors significantly associated with RBCT included older age (90 to 94 years, odds ratio (OR) 3.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.28 to 4.04); p < 0.001), intramedullary fixation (OR 7.15 (95% CI 6.50 to 7.86); p < 0.001), and sliding hip screw constructs (OR 2.34 (95% CI 2.19 to 2.50); p < 0.001). Blood transfusion during admission was significantly associated with higher rates of 30-day mortality (OR 1.35 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.53); p < 0.001) and 60-day mortality (OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.43 to 1.67); p < 0.001), as well as delays to postoperative mobilization, higher likelihood of not returning to their home, and longer length of stay. CONCLUSION: Blood transfusion after hip fracture was common, although practice varied nationally. RBCT is associated with adverse outcomes, which is most likely a reflection of perioperative anaemia, rather than any causal effect. Use of RBCT does not appear to reverse this effect, highlighting the importance of perioperative blood loss reduction.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1266-1272.

COVID-19 during the index hospital admission confers a 'double-hit' effect on hip fracture patients and is associated with a two-fold increase in 1-year mortality risk.

PURPOSE: The aims were to: (1) determine 1-year mortality rates for hip fracture patients during the first UK COVID-19 wave, and (2) assess mortality risk associated with COVID-19. METHODS: A nationwide multicentre cohort study was conducted of all patients presenting to 17 hospitals in March-April 2020. Follow-up data were collected one year after initial hip fracture ('index') admission, including: COVID-19 status, readmissions, mortality, and cause of death. RESULTS: Data were available for 788/833 (94.6%) patients. One-year mortality was 242/788 (30.7%), and the prevalence of COVID-19 within 365 days of admission was 142/788 (18.0%). One-year mortality was higher for patients with COVID-19 (46.5% vs. 27.2%; p < 0.001), and highest for those COVID-positive during index admission versus after discharge (54.7% vs. 39.7%; p = 0.025). Anytime COVID-19 was independently associated with 50% increased mortality risk within a year of injury (HR 1.50, p = 0.006); adjusted mortality risk doubled (HR 2.03, p < 0.001) for patients COVID-positive during index admission. No independent association was observed between mortality risk and COVID-19 diagnosed following discharge (HR 1.16, p = 0.462). Most deaths (56/66; 84.8%) in COVID-positive patients occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (median 11.0 days). Most cases diagnosed following discharge from the admission hospital occurred in downstream hospitals. CONCLUSION: Almost half the patients that had COVID-19 within 365 days of fracture had died within one year of injury versus 27.2% of COVID-negative patients. Only COVID-19 diagnosed during the index admission was associated independently with an increased likelihood of death, indicating that infection during this time may represent a 'double-hit' insult, and most COVID-related deaths occurred within 30 days of diagnosis.

The IMPACT of COVID-19 on trauma & orthopaedic surgery provides lessons for future communicable disease outbreaks : minimum reporting standards, risk scores, fragility trauma services, and global collaboration.

Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):342-345.