Post-stroke delirium and challenges for the rehabilitation setting: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke delirium (PSD) is a common yet underrecognized complication following stroke, with its effect on stroke rehabilitation being the subject of limited attention. The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of core issues in PSD including epidemiology, diagnostic challenges, and management considerations, with an emphasis on the rehabilitation phase. METHODS: Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched through February 2023 using keywords related to delirium, rehabilitation, and the post-stroke period. Only studies conducted on adults (≥18 years) and written in the English language were included. RESULTS: PSD affects approximately 25% of stroke patients, and often persists well into the post-acute phase, with a negative impact on rehabilitation outcomes including lengths of stay, function, and cognition. Certain stroke and patient characteristics can help predict risk for PSD. The diagnosis of delirium becomes more challenging when superimposed on stroke deficits (such as attentional impairment or other cognitive, psychiatric, or behavioural disorders), leading to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or misdiagnosis. Particularly in patients with post-stroke language or cognitive disorders, common screening tools are less accurate. The multidisciplinary rehabilitation team should be involved in management of PSD as rehabilitative activities can be beneficial for patients who can participate safely. Addressing barriers to effective delirium care at various levels of the health care system can improve rehabilitation trajectories for these patients. CONCLUSIONS: PSD is a disease entity commonly encountered in the rehabilitation setting, but it is challenging to diagnose and manage. New delirium screening tools and management approaches specific for the post-stroke and rehabilitation settings are needed.

Older patients with active cancer have favorable inpatient rehabilitation outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes of older patients with active cancer (OPAC) undergoing post-acute inpatient rehabilitation (IR), and to evaluate which clinical factors are associated with poor rehabilitation outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients aged ≥65 with active cancer undergoing IR following acute hospitalization at our tertiary hospital centre (N = 330). We collected data on patient, malignancy, and hospitalization characteristics, and IR outcomes including function, mobility, discharge destination, and mortality. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent associations with the composite outcome of death within three months or discharge to long-term care (LTC). RESULTS: Patient mean age was 80.1 ± 7.2 years. The most common malignancies were colon (30.9%) and hematologic (16.1%). Most patients were hospitalized urgently (64.8%) and underwent surgery (72.4%). From IR admission to discharge, patients ambulating independently increased from 14.0% to 52.0%. Discharge destination was to the community (80.4%), to LTC (7.6%), and transfer to an acute ward (7.2%), while 4.8% died during IR. One-year survival was 62.1%. The composite outcome was met by 24.8% of patients with multivariate logistic regression revealing independent associations (p < 0.05) with high baseline dependency, metastatic disease, low mobility score on IR admission, complications during acute care, and ≥ 75th percentile values for lactate dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase. CONCLUSION: OPAC have favorable IR outcomes including high rate of community discharge, function and mobility gains, and lower mortality rates when compared with previously studied cancer rehabilitation populations. We identified several clinical markers associated with the composite outcome, which can guide post-acute discharge planning in patients with an unclear prognosis.

Teaching physicians the GPGP method promotes deprescribing in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: In complex older patients, inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy (IMUP) are commonplace and increasing exponentially. Reducing IMUP is a challenge in multiple clinical contexts, including acute admission and family practice, due to several key barriers. In the global effort against this epidemic, educational programs geared toward changing physicians' prescribing patterns represent an important means of promoting deprescribing. METHODS: This is a nonrandomized, controlled interventional study investigating polypharmacy outcomes and prescribing patterns in patients whose physicians were trained in the Good Palliative-Geriatric Practice (GPGP) method, an algorithm for the reduction of polypharmacy, with patients whose physicians were not. Training involved a one-time, full-day workshop led by a senior geriatrician. Two separate settings were examined. In the inpatient setting, one internal medicine ward was trained and compared with another ward which was not trained. In the family practice setting, 28 physicians were trained and compared with practices of 15 physicians not trained. Patients were above the age of 70, representative of the general geriatric population, and not terminally ill. RESULTS: In the inpatient arm, the intervention group (n = 100) experienced a decrease in medications prescribed from admission to discharge of 18.5%, compared with a decrease of 1.9% in the control group (n = 100, difference between groups p < 0.0001). In the outpatient arm, the intervention group (n = 100) experienced a decrease in medication number of 6.1% compared with 0.07% in the control group (n = 100, difference between groups p = 0.001) over a 6-month period. Preferential decreases in specific drug classes were observed in both groups, including benzodiazepines, psychotropics, and antihypertensives. CONCLUSIONS: A one-time educational intervention based on GPGP can change prescribing patterns in both outpatient and inpatient settings leading to a moderate reduction in polypharmacy. Future work should focus on longitudinal interventions, and longer-term clinical outcomes such as morbidity, mortality, and quality of life.