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.

Discontinuation of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs in hospitalised population at the age of 60 and above. An open-label randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating insomnia with hypnotic drugs in elderly patients has many adverse effects. This study aims to assess the effect of two discontinuation methods of hypnotic drugs during acute hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial that included participants aged 60 and above taking benzodiazepines or Z-Drugs for at least 3 months as a treatment for insomnia and were admitted to the hospital. In the prospective arm, patients were randomly assigned into two intervention groups. In the Minimal Intervention (MI) group, patients received an explanation of the dangers of long-term treatment and a recommendation to stop the treatment. In the Tapering Down Intervention (TDI) group, in addition to the explanation, patients received a tapering down table. In the retrospective arm (control group), we examined the use of hypnotic drugs among hospitalized patients 3 months after hospitalization, similar to the patients in the prospective arm. RESULTS: 46 patients were enrolled in the MI group, 55 patients in the TDI group, and 114 patients in the control group. The mean age in the three groups was 75.0 ± 8.2, 75.9 ± 9.0, and 75.0 ± 7.9 years respectively (p = 0.85). After 3 months, seven (15.2%) of the patients in the MI group, 15 (27.3%) in the TD group, and 2 (1.8%) in the control group (p = 0.00003) were weaned from the hypnotic drugs treatment, without a significant difference between the intervention groups (p = 0.221). CONCLUSIONS: A short intervention during hospitalization results in a significant decrease in hypnotic drug use.

The cultural expression of spiritual distress in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Although spiritual distress is present across cultures, the ways in which patients experience it vary between cultures. Our goal was to examine the cultural expression and key indicators of spiritual distress in Israel. METHODS: We conducted a structured interview of 202 oncology outpatients in a cross-sectional study. Self-diagnosis of spiritual distress, which is a demonstrated gold standard for identifying its presence, was compared with the Facit-Sp-12 and a number of other items (from the Spiritual Injury Scale and newly developed Israeli items) hypothesized as Israeli cultural expressions of spiritual distress, demographic and medical data, and patient desire to receive spiritual care. RESULTS: Significant variation was found between Israeli cultural expression of spiritual distress and that found in studies from other countries. Key expressions of spiritual distress in this study included lack of inner peace, grief, and an inability to accept what is happening. Items related to faith were not significant, and loss of meaning showed mixed results. Patients requesting spiritual care were more likely to be in spiritual distress. No demographic or medical data correlated with spiritual distress. CONCLUSIONS: Specially designed interventions to reduce spiritual distress should address the expressions of the distress specific to that culture. Studies of the efficacy of spiritual care can examine the extent of spiritual distress in general or of its specific cultural expressions.

Distinguishing Between Spiritual Distress, General Distress, Spiritual Well-Being, and Spiritual Pain Among Cancer Patients During Oncology Treatment.

CONTEXT: Spiritual distress is present in approximately 25% of oncology patients. OBJECTIVES: We examined the extent to which this measure is identical to a variety of other measures, such as spiritual well-being, spiritual injury, spiritual pain, and general distress. METHODS: Structured interview of oncology outpatients over 12 months, approached nonselectively. The presence or absence of spiritual distress was compared against spiritual pain and two spiritual well-being tools: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being 12-Item Scale (FACIT-Sp-12) and the Spiritual Injury Scale (SIS). We also examined whether a general distress visual analogue scale sufficed to identify spiritual distress. Other questions concerned demographic and clinical data. RESULTS: Of 416 patients approached, 202 completed the interview, of whom 23% reported spiritual distress. All measures showed significant correlation (receiver operating characteristic, area under the curve: SIS 0.79; distress thermometer [DT] 0.68; FACIT-Sp-12 0.67), yet none were identical with spiritual distress (sensitivity/specificity: SIS 64%/79%; spiritual pain 72%/76%; DT 41%/76%; FACIT-Sp-12 57%/72%). Of the FACIT-Sp-12 subscales, only peace correlated with spiritual distress. A significant predictor of spiritual distress was patients' self-evaluation of grave clinical condition (odds ratio 3.3; 95% CI 1.1-9.5). Multivariable analysis of individual measure items suggests an alternative three-parameter model for spiritual distress: not feeling peaceful, feeling unable to accept that this is happening, and perceived severity of one's illness. CONCLUSION: The DT is not sufficient to identify spiritual distress. The peace subscale of FACIT-Sp-12 is a better match than the measure as a whole. The SIS is the best match for spiritual distress, although an imperfect one.