In-hospital stress and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatients are exposed to high levels of stress during hospitalisation that may increase susceptibility to major adverse health events post-hospitalisation (known as post-hospital syndrome). However, the existing evidence base has not been reviewed and the magnitude of this relationship remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) synthesise existing evidence and to determine the strength of the relationship between in-hospital stress and patient outcomes, and 2) determine if this relationship differs between (i) in-hospital vs post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective vs objective outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023 was conducted. Included studies reported a measure of perceived and appraised stress while in hospital, and at least one patient outcome. A random-effects model was generated to pool correlations (Pearson's r), followed by sub-group and sensitivity analyses. The study protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237017). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies, comprising 16 effects and 1,832 patients, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included. A small-to-medium association was found: as in-hospital stress increased, patient outcomes deteriorated (r = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.12-0.26; I2 = 63.6; p < 0.001). This association was significantly stronger for (i) in-hospital versus post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective versus objective outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of psychological stress experienced by hospital inpatients are associated with poorer patient outcomes. However, more high-quality, larger scale studies are required to better understand the association between in-hospital stressors and adverse outcomes.

Using consensus methods to prioritize modifiable risk factors for development of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older adults.

AIM: The aim of the study was to reach consensus on modifiable risk factors for a novel system of care to address Manifestations of Frailty in hospitalized older adults. DESIGN: Consensus study. METHOD: A modified nominal group technique, incorporating expert group face-to-face interaction, review of existing evidence and pre/post-meeting questionnaire completion was undertaken November 2019-February 2020. RESULTS: Seventy-one risk factors, within seven risk factor domains (pain, medication, fluid and nutrition intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient factors) were considered. It was agreed that 44 risk factors incorporating patient, organizational and environmental risk factors were modifiable and should be included in a novel system of care.

Risk factors for manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older adults: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore the experiences of older people and ward staff to identify modifiable factors (risk factors) which have the potential to reduce development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty during hospitalization. To develop a theoretical framework of modifiable risk factors. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with recently discharged older people (n = 18) and focus groups with ward staff (n = 22) were undertaken between July and October 2019. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Themes identified related to attitude to risk, communication and, loss of routine, stimulation and confidence. Using findings from this study and previously identified literature, we developed a theoretical framework including 67 modifiable risk factors. Risk factors are grouped by patient risk factor domains (pain, medication, nutritional/fluid intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient risk factors) and linked care management sub-domains (including risk factors relating to the ward environment, process of care, ward culture or broader organizational set up). Many of the additional 36 risk factors identified by this study were related to care management sub-domains. CONCLUSION: A co-ordinated approach is needed to address modifiable risk factors which lead to the development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older people. Risk assessment and management practices should not be duplicative and, should recognize and address modifiable risk factors which occur at the ward and organizational level. IMPACT: Some older people leave hospital more dependent than when they come in and this is, in part, due to the environment and process of care and not just the severity of their presenting illness. Many of the risk factors identified need to be addressed at an organizational rather than individual level. Findings will inform a programme of research to develop and test a novel system of care aimed at preventing loss of independence in hospitalized older people.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

A multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial of the POD system of care.

OBJECTIVE: to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the prevention of delirium (POD) system of care in reducing incident delirium in acute hospital wards and gather data for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: cluster randomised and controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: sixteen acute care of older people and orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: patients 65 years and over admitted to participating wards during the trial period. INTERVENTIONS: participating wards were randomly assigned to either the POD programme or usual care, determined by existing local policies and practices. The POD programme is a manualised multicomponent delirium prevention intervention that targets 10 risk factors for delirium. The intervention wards underwent a 6-month implementation period before trial recruitment commenced. Main outcome measure incidence of new-onset delirium measured using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) measured daily for up to 10 days post consent. RESULTS: out of 4449, 3274 patients admitted to the wards were eligible. In total, 714 patients consented (713 registered) to the trial, thirty-three participants (4.6%) withdrew. Adherence to the intervention was classified as at least medium for seven wards. Rates of new-onset delirium were lower than expected and did not differ between groups (24 (7.0%) of participants in the intervention group versus 33 (8.9%) in the control group; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.68 (0.37-1.26); P = 0.2225). CONCLUSIONS: based on these findings, a definitive trial is achievable and would need to recruit 5220 patients in 26 two-ward hospital clusters. Trial registration: ISRCTN01187372. Registered 13 March 2014.

Use of the confusion assessment method in multicentre delirium trials: training and standardisation.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs commonly in older adults and is associated with adverse outcomes. Multicentre clinical trials evaluating interventions to prevent delirium are needed. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is a validated instrument for delirium detection. We hypothesised it would be possible for a large feasibility study to train a large number of research assistants, with varying experience levels, to conduct CAM assessments reliably in multiple hospital sites. METHODS: A standardised training programme was followed, incorporating structured training at a central location and at study sites. CAM practice sessions on both delirious and non-delirious patients by research assistants were conducted and, thereafter, there was ongoing inter-rater reliability assessment on the CAM between research assistant pairs at study sites. The setting was eight acute care hospitals in England and Wales. Participants were research assistants working on a multicentre feasibility study of delirium prevention. The measurement used was the Confusion Assessment Method. RESULTS: Thirty-seven research assistants were trained in CAM assessment and 33 returned training logs. The logs showed there was 100% overall agreement between research assistant pairs on 295 CAM assessments, of which 263 (89.2%) were negative for delirium and 32 (10.8%) were positive. In the course of the feasibility study, research assistants successfully completed 5065 (89.7%) of the 5645 expected CAM assessments, with minimal missing data. CONCLUSION: Using the training methods described in this study, it is possible to achieve high quality delirium assessments for large numbers of patients with little missing data across geographically dispersed sites in multicentre studies. The standardisation of multisite delirium assessments is an important contribution to research methodology, and provides a much-needed advance for the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCT ISRCTN01187372 . Registered 13 March 2014.

Community ageing research 75+ study (CARE75+): an experimental ageing and frailty research cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ Study (CARE75+) is a longitudinal cohort study collecting an extensive range of health, social and economic data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ is the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, to align applied epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people living with frailty. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using a TwiCs design. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices. Nursing home residents, those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less and people receiving palliative care will be excluded. Data collection assessments will be face to face in the person's home at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months and 48 months, including assessments of frailty, cognition, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidity, medications, resilience, loneliness, pain and self-efficacy. A modified protocol for follow-up by telephone or web based will be offered at 6 months. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies, including intervention studies using the TwiCs design. A blood sample biobank will be established for future basic science studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the NRES Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). Formal written consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity.Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific conferences. Key study results will be summarised and disseminated to all study participants via newsletters, local older people's publications and local engagement events. Results will be reported on a bespoke CARE75+ website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124;Results stage.

Convergent validity of the electronic frailty index.

Background: the electronic frailty index (eFI) has been developed and validated using routine primary care electronic health record data. The focus of the original big data study was on predictive validity as a form of criterion validation. Convergent validity is a subtype of construct validity and considered a core component of the validity of a test. Objective: to investigate convergent validity between the eFI and research standard frailty measures. Design: cross-sectional validation study using data from the Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE 75+) cohort. Setting: multi-site UK community-based cohort study. Subjects: three hundred fifty-three community-dwelling older people (median age 80 years, IQR 77-84), excluding care home residents and people in the terminal stage of life. Median eFI score of participants was 0.22 (IQR 0.14-0.31). Methods: convergent validities between the eFI and: a research standard frailty index (FI); the phenotype model of frailty; Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Edmonton Frail Scale were assessed using scatter plots and Spearman's rank tests to estimate correlation coefficients (Spearman's rho, ρ) and 95% confidence intervals. Results: results indicate strong correlation between the eFI and both the research standard FI (ρ = 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.74) and Edmonton Frail Scale (ρ = 0.63, 95% CI 0.57-0.69). There was evidence for moderate correlation between the eFI and both the CFS (ρ = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.65) and phenotype model (ρ = 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.59). Conclusions: This study provides evidence for convergent validity of the eFI, a core component of test validity.

Incidence of first stroke and ethnic differences in stroke pattern in Bradford, UK: Bradford Stroke Study.

Background Information on ethnic disparities in stroke between White and Pakistani population in Europe is scarce. Bradford District has the largest proportion of Pakistani people in England; this provides a unique opportunity to study the difference in stroke between the two major ethnic groups. Aim To determine the first-ever-stroke incidence and examine the disparities in stroke patterns between Whites and Pakistanis in Bradford. Methods Prospective 12 months study consisting of 273,327 adults (≥18 years) residents. Stroke cases were identified by multiple overlapping approaches. Results In the study period, 541 first-ever-strokes were recorded. The crude incidence rate was 198 per 100,000 person-years. Age adjusted-standardized rate to the World Health Organization world population of first-ever-stroke is 155 and 101 per 100,000 person-years in Pakistanis and Whites respectively. Four hundred and thirty-eight patients (81%) were Whites, 83 (15.3%) were Pakistanis, 11 (2%) were Indian and Bangladeshis, and 9 (1.7%) were of other ethnic origin. Pakistanis were significantly younger and had more obesity ( p = 0.049), and diabetes mellitus (DM) ( p = <0.001). They were less likely to suffer from atrial fibrillation ( p = <0.001), be ex- or current smokers ( p = <0.001), and drink alcohol above the recommended level ( p = 0.007) compared with Whites. In comparison with Whites, higher rates of age-adjusted stroke (1.5-fold), lacunar infarction (threefold), and ischemic infarction due to large artery disease (twofold) were found in the Pakistanis. Conclusions The incidence of first-ever-stroke is higher in the Pakistanis compared with the Whites in Bradford, UK. Etiology and vascular risk factors vary between the ethnic groups. This information should be considered when investigating stroke etiology, and when planning prevention and care provision to improve outcomes after stroke.

Where next for delirium research?

Clinicians who manage delirium must do so without key information required for evidence-based practice, not least lack of any clearly effective treatment for established delirium. Both the nature of delirium and the methods used to research it contribute to difficulties. Delirium is heterogeneous, with respect to motor subtype, aetiology, setting and the co-existence of dementia, and may be almost inevitable towards the end of life. Elements of assessment are subjective, so diagnosis can be uncertain or unreliable. Defining objectives of care and outcomes is sometimes unclear. Better identification and case definition, including seeking biomarkers, stratification by type, or aetiology, and application of more complex models of causation may help. This will likely require further observational epidemiology, imaging and laboratory-based research before further rounds of large-scale randomised controlled trials. Application of trial methodologies designed for drug treatments of better-defined conditions may have failed to take account of the complexities both of diagnosis and complex intervention in delirium. Both drug and complex intervention trials need sufficient preliminary work to ensure that the right dose, duration or intensity of treatment is delivered and a range of 'intermediate' and 'distal' outcome measures assessed. Re-purposing of established drugs may provide a source of investigational products. Greater use of alternative research methodologies (qualitative and realist), or adjuvants to trials (process evaluation), will help answer questions about focus, generalisability and why interventions succeed or fail. Delirium research will have to embrace both a 'back to basics' approach with increased breadth of methodologies to make progress.

Validation of the Italian version of the Patient Reported Experience Measures for intermediate care services.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate care (IC) services are a key component of integrated care for elderly people, providing a link between hospital and home through provision of rehabilitation and health and social care. The Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are designed to measure user experience of care in IC settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and the scaling properties of the Italian version of PREMs questionnaires for use in IC services. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on consecutive users of 1 home-based and 4 bed-based IC services in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). The main outcome measure was the PREMs questionnaire results. PREMs for each home- and bed-based IC services were translated, back-translated, and adapted through consensus among the members of the advisory board and pilot testing of face validity in 15 patients. A total of 199 questionnaires were returned from users of bed-based services and 185 were returned by mail from users of home-based services. The return rates and responses were examined. Mokken analysis was used to examine the scaling properties of the PREMs. RESULTS: Analysis performed on the bed-based PREMs (N=154) revealed that 13 items measured the same construct and formed a moderate-strength scale (Loevinger H=0.488) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.843). Analysis of home-based PREMs (N=134 records) revealed that 15 items constituted a strong scale (Loevinger H=0.543) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.875). CONCLUSION: The Italian versions of the bed- and home-based IC-PREMs questionnaires proved to be valid and reliable tools to assess patients' experience of care. Future plans include monitoring user experience over time in the same facilities and in other Italian IC settings for between-service benchmarking.

Understanding the Models of Community Hospital rehabilitation Activity (MoCHA): a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: To understand the variation in performance between community hospitals, our objectives are: to measure the relative performance (cost efficiency) of rehabilitation services in community hospitals; to identify the characteristics of community hospital rehabilitation that optimise performance; to investigate the current impact of community hospital inpatient rehabilitation for older people on secondary care and the potential impact if community hospital rehabilitation was optimised to best practice nationally; to examine the relationship between the configuration of intermediate care and secondary care bed use; and to develop toolkits for commissioners and community hospital providers to optimise performance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 4 linked studies will be performed. Study 1: cost efficiency modelling will apply econometric techniques to data sets from the National Health Service (NHS) Benchmarking Network surveys of community hospital and intermediate care. This will identify community hospitals' performance and estimate the gap between high and low performers. Analyses will determine the potential impact if the performance of all community hospitals nationally was optimised to best performance, and examine the association between community hospital configuration and secondary care bed use. Study 2: a national community hospital survey gathering detailed cost data and efficiency variables will be performed. Study 3: in-depth case studies of 3 community hospitals, 2 high and 1 low performing, will be undertaken. Case studies will gather routine hospital and local health economy data. Ward culture will be surveyed. Content and delivery of treatment will be observed. Patients and staff will be interviewed. Study 4: co-designed web-based quality improvement toolkits for commissioners and providers will be developed, including indicators of performance and the gap between local and best community hospitals performance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals, reports will be distributed through stakeholder organisations. Ethical approval was obtained from the Bradford Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15/YH/0062).

Delirium: a guide for the general physician.

Delirium describes a sudden onset change in mental status of fluctuating course. This is a state of altered consciousness characterised chiefly by inattention or lack of arousal, but can also include new impairment of language, perception and behaviour. Certain predisposing factors can make an individual more susceptible to delirium in the face of a stressor. Stressors include direct insults to the brain, insults peripheral to the brain or external changes in the environment of an individual. Delirium is varied in its presentation, and can be categorised by the psychomotor profile as: hyperactive type (overly vigilant, agitated, often wandersome), hypoactive type (sedate or withdrawn) or mixed types.

Delirium: a guide for the general physician.

Delirium describes a sudden onset change in mental status of fluctuating course. This is a state of altered consciousness characterised chiefly by inattention or lack of arousal, but can also include new impairment of language, perception and behaviour. Certain predisposing factors can make an individual more susceptible to delirium in the face of a stressor. Stressors include direct insults to the brain, insults peripheral to the brain or external changes in the environment of an individual. Delirium is varied in its presentation, and can be categorised by the psychomotor profile as: hyperactive type (overly vigilant, agitated, often wandersome), hypoactive type (sedate or withdrawn) or mixed types.

Study protocol-investigation of the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) for the routine detection of delirium in the care home setting: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is a common and distressing condition associated with frailty, dementia and comorbidity. These are common in long-term care settings. Residents in care homes are therefore at particular risk of delirium. Despite this, methods to detect delirium in care homes are lacking, with existing diagnostic tools taking too long, or requiring specific training to deliver. This limits their feasibility for use for the routine detection of delirium by care home staff. Routine screening for delirium in care homes would allow timely attention to exacerbating factors to attenuate the episode, and facilitate future research into delirium in the care home environment. METHODS: Residents from 4 large care homes will be asked to consent (or their consultees asked to provide a declaration of agreement) to participate in the study. Care home staff will administer the 25-item Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS)-a delirium screening tool based on observed behaviours-and this will be tested against the research standard Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) administered by trained research assistants performed two times per week for all participating residents. ANALYSIS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios and a diagnostic OR will be calculated for the detection of delirium with the 25-item DOSS. The feasibility of routine delirium screening and the scaling properties of the 25-item DOSS will also be explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For residents lacking capacity to participate, a consultee will be approached for a declaration of agreement for inclusion in the study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated in written format to clinical commissioning groups, general practitioners and relevant third parties. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14608554.

Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.