Carried Along.

As a physician, the hardest days in medicine are when I endure great distance from the Lord in my bedside interactions with patients and families. They make me feel like driftwood without vocational direction. Given the enormity of what critically ill patients are experiencing, emotional detachment from Jesus and those I am serving creates swells of grief for me as a Catholic physician. In the intensive care unit, I tend to gravitate to big and bold occurrences. Unfortunately, one tendency I have is to think that small events yield small outcomes, while big events yield big outcomes. Such is not the case with God, whom I tend to force into finite scales when, in truth, the Creator of the universe has no limits. This essay highlights an experience in which God brought a deeper understanding of His grace from a seemingly monotonous patient encounter. I am reminded that because of God's presence in my relationship with each person, "Nothing shall be impossible." (Lk 1:37).

Oxygen as an Essential Medicine.

Supplemental oxygen is an essential medication in critical care. The optimal oxygen dose delivery system remains unclear, however. The "dose" and "delivery" of oxygen carry significant importance for resource-limited settings, such as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Regrettably, LMICS often experience significant inequities in oxygen supply and demand, with major impacts on preventable mortality. These inequities have become particularly prominent during the global COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for additional investment and research into the best methods to utilize supplemental oxygen and ensure stable access to medical oxygen.

Sunset and the Birth of New Ideas.

We met each other through academic medicine, in search for answers, and found friendship. Its value in my life was abundant, unearned grace. In Dr. Curtis, I learned the truth of the words of Thomas Mann, "Illness was merely transformed love."

Mobilization and Rehabilitation Practice in ICUs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Mobilization and acute rehabilitation are essential in the intensive care unit (ICU), with substantial evidence supporting their benefits. This study aimed to characterize ICU mobilization practices during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international point prevalence study. All ICUs across the world were eligible to participate and were required to enroll all patients in each ICU on the survey date, 27 January 2021. The primary outcome was the achievement of mobilization at the level of sitting over the edge of the bed. Independent factors associated with mobilization, including COVID-19 infection, were analyzed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 135 ICUs in 33 countries participated, for inclusion of 1229 patients. Among patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation (MV), those with COVID-19 infection were mobilized more than those without COVID-19 (60% vs. 34%, p < 0.001). Among patients who were receiving MV, mobilization was low in both groups (7% vs. 9%, p = .56). These findings were consistent irrespective of ICU length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that COVID-19 infection was associated with achievement of mobilization in patients without (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.71-7.42) and with MV (aOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.00-4.51). Factors that prevented mobilization were prone positioning in patients without MV and continuous use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation agents in patients with MV, whereas facilitating factors were the presence of targets/goals in both groups. CONCLUSION: Mobilization rates for ICU patients across the globe are severely low, with the greatest immobility observed in mechanically ventilated patients. Although COVID-19 is not an independent barrier to the mobilization of patients with or without MV, this study has highlighted the current lack of mobility practice for all ICU patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.(299 words).

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. METHODS: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Nutrition therapy in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the ISIIC point prevalence study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nutrition therapy for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients involves complex decision-making, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the use of nutrition therapy in ICU patients with and without COVID-19 infections. METHODS: Nutrition therapy was evaluated during a world-wide one-day prevalence study focused on implementation of the ABCDEF bundle (A: regular pain assessment, B: both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, C: regular sedation assessment, D: regular delirium assessment, E: early mobility and exercise, and F: family engagement and empowerment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basic ICU and patient demographics including nutrition therapy delivery were collected on the survey day. Physical activity for patients with and without COVID infections was categorized using the ICU mobility scale (IMS). Multivariable regression analysis of nutrition was conducted using ICU parameters. RESULTS: The survey included 627 non-COVID and 602 COVID patients. A higher proportion of COVID-19 patients received energy ≥20 kcal/kg/day (55% vs. 45%; p = 0.0007) and protein ≥1.2 g/kg/day (45% vs. 35%; p = 0.0011) compared to non-COVID patients. Enteral nutrition was provided to most COVID patients even with prone positioning (91%). Despite nutrition therapy, IMS was extremely low in both groups; median IMS was 1 in non-COVID patients and 0 in COVID patients. The rate of energy delivery ≥20 kcal/kg/day was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 infections in the subgroup of ICU days ≤5 days and IMS ≤2. Having a dedicated ICU nutritionist/dietitian was significantly associated with appropriate energy delivery in patients both with and without COVID-19 infections, but not with protein delivery. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infections received higher energy and protein delivery. Generally low mobility levels highlight the need to optimize early mobilization with nutrition therapy in all ICU patients.

Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle for Critically Ill ICU Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-National 1-Day Point Prevalence Study.

Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors. Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery. Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F. Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.

Association of postoperative delirium with cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between postoperative delirium (POD) and cognitive outcomes at least 1 month after surgery in elderly patients, and synthesize the dynamic risk trajectory of cognition impairment after POD. DESIGN: Meta-analysis searching PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE from inception to November 1, 2020. The terms postoperative delirium, delirium after surgery, postsurgical delirium, postoperative cogniti*, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, postoperative cognition decline, cognitive decline, cognitive impair* and dement* were searched alone or in combination. MEASUREMENTS: Inclusion criteria were prospective cohort studies investigating the association between POD and cognitive outcomes in patients aged ≥60 years underwent surgery. The primary outcome was the association between POD and cognitive outcomes at 1 or more months after surgery. We considered cognitive outcomes measured up to 12 months after surgery as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. Two authors performed the study screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges g or Odds ratio (OR) based on random- and fixed-effects models. Meta-regression was conducted to analyze the role of potential contributors to heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Our result showed a significant and medium association between POD and cognitive outcomes after at least 1 month postoperatively (g = 0.61 95% CI 0.43-0.79; I2 = 65.1%), indicating that patients with POD were associated with worse cognitive outcomes. The association of POD with short- and long-term cognitive impairment were also both significant (short-term: g = 0.46 95% CI 0.24-0.68; I2 = 53.1%; and long-term: g = 0.82 95% CI 0.57-1.06; I2 = 57.1%). A multivariate meta-regression suggested that age and measure of delirium were significant sources of heterogeneity. POD was also associated with the significant risk for dementia (OR = 6.08 95% CI 3.80-9.72; I2 = 0) as well as attention (OR = 1.74 95% CI 1.13-2.68; I2 = 0), executive (OR = 1.33 95% CI 1.00-1.80; I2 = 0) and memory impairment (OR = 1.59 95% CI 1.20-2.10; I2 = 43.0%). Additionally, our results showed that the risk trajectory for cognitive decline associated with POD within five years after surgery revealed exponential growth. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis quantifying the association between POD and cognitive outcomes. Our results showed that POD was significantly associated with worse cognitive outcomes, including short- and long-term cognitive outcomes following surgery.

Delirium Severely Worsens Outcome in Patients with COVID-19-A Retrospective Cohort Study from Temporary Critical Care Hospitals.

Delirium is a sign of deterioration of homeostasis and worse prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency, risk factors and prognosis of delirium in patients with COVID-19 in a temporary acute setting hospital. A retrospective cohort analysis of data collected between October 2020 and February 2021 from two temporary acute care hospitals was performed. All consecutive hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with COVID-19 were included. An assessment of consciousness was carried out at least two times a day, including neurological examination. Delirium was identified through retrospective chart review according to DSM-5 criteria if present at least once during hospitalization. Analysis included 201 patients, 39 diagnosed with delirium (19.4%). Delirious patients were older (p < 0.001), frailer (p < 0.001) and the majority were male (p = 0.002). Respiratory parameters were worse in this group with higher oxygen flow (p = 0.013), lower PaO2 (p = 0.043) and higher FiO2 (p = 0.006). The mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with delirium (46.15% vs 3.70%, p < 0.001) with OR 17.212 (p < 0.001) corrected for age and gender. Delirious patients experienced significantly more complications: cardiovascular (OR 7.72, p < 0.001), pulmonary (OR 8.79, p < 0.001) or septic (OR 3.99, p = 0.029). The odds of mortality in patients with COVID-19 presenting with delirium at any point of hospitalization were seventeen times higher.

ABCDEF Bundle and Supportive ICU Practices for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An International Point Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting. DESIGN: A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study. SETTING: The study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys. PATIENTS: The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them. CONCLUSIONS: This point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.

Delirium Assessment in Critically Ill Older Adults: Considerations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Older adults are particularly vulnerable during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, because higher age increases risk for both delirium and COVID-19-related death. Despite the health care system limitations and the clinical challenges of the pandemic, delirium screening and management remains an evidence-based cornerstone of critical care. This article discusses practical recommendations for delirium screening in the COVID-19 pandemic era, tips for training health care workers in delirium screening, validated tools for detecting delirium in critically ill older adults, and approaches to special populations of older adults (eg, sensory impairment, dementia, acute neurologic injury).

A Tunisian version of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU): translation and validation.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and it is associated with poor outcomes. In Tunisia, however, it is still underdiagnosed as there is no validated screening tool. The aim of this study was to translate and to validate a Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU. METHODS: For the validation and inter-rater reliability assessment of the Tunisian CAM-ICU, two trained intensivists independently evaluated delirium in the patients admitted to the ICU between October 2017 and June 2018. All the patients consecutively admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h and having a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than or equal to "-3" were assessed for delirium excluding those with stroke, dementia, psychosis or persistent coma. The results were compared with the reference evaluation carried out by a psychiatrist using the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria. The inter-rater reliability was calculated using the kappa (κ) statistic. The CAM-ICU concurrent validity was assessed using Cronbach's α coefficient, sensitivity, specificity as well as positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) for the two Tunisian CAM-ICU raters. RESULTS: The study involved 137 patients [median (IQR) age: 60 [49-68] years, male sex (n = 102), invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 49)]. Using the DSM-V criteria evaluations, 46 patients were diagnosed with delirium. When applying the Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU, 38(27.7%) patients were diagnosed with delirium for the first rater and 45(32.6%) patients for the second one. The Tunisian CAM-ICU showed a very-high inter-rater reliability for both intensivists (κ = 0.844, p < 0.001). Using the DSM-V rater as the reference standard, the sensitivity of the two intensivists' evaluations was 80.4 vs. 95.7%. Specificity was 98.9% for both. The Cronbach's α of the first and second raters' evaluations using the Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU were 0.886 and 0.887, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU showed almost perfect validity and reliability in detecting delirium in critically ill patients. It could therefore be used in Tunisian ICUs or where Tunisian translators are available following appropriate training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

A Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Intervention to Prevent Delirium for Hospitalized People with Advanced Cancer: A Phase II Cluster Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial (The PRESERVE Pilot Study).

Background: Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. Objective: To determine if a multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, before a phase III (efficacy) trial. Design: Phase II (feasibility) cluster randomized controlled trial. All sites implemented delirium screening and diagnostic assessment. Strategies within sleep, vision and hearing, hydration, orientation, mobility, and family domains were delivered to enrolled patients at intervention site admission days 1-7. Control sites then implemented the intervention ("waitlist sites"). Setting: Four Australian palliative care units. Measurements: The primary outcome was adherence, with an a priori endpoint of at least 60% patients achieving full adherence. Secondary outcomes were interdisciplinary care delivery, delirium measures, and adverse events, analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: Sixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, and 20 waitlist) had 98% delirium screens and 75% diagnostic assessments completed. Nurses (67%), physicians (16%), allied health (8.4%), family (7%), patients (1%), and volunteers (0.5%) delivered the intervention. There was full adherence for 5% patients at intervention sites, partial for 25%. Both full and partial adherence were higher at waitlist sites: 25% and 45%, respectively. One-third of control site patients (32%) became delirious within seven days of admission compared to one-fifth (20%) at both intervention and waitlist sites (p = 0.5). Mean (standard deviation) Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 scores were 16.8 + 12.0 control sites versus 18.4 + 8.2 (p = 0.6) intervention and 18.7 + 7.8 (p = 0.5) waitlist sites. The intervention caused no adverse events. Conclusion: The intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.

Improving Care Transitions for Hospitalized Veterans Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Focus on Polypharmacy and Geriatric Syndromes.

Geriatric syndromes and polypharmacy are common in older patients discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and increase 30-day readmission risk. In a U.S.A. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-funded Quality Improvement study to improve care transitions from the VA hospital to area SNFs, Veterans (N = 134) were assessed for geriatric syndromes using standardized instruments as well as polypharmacy, defined as five or more medications. Warm handoffs were used to facilitate the transfer of this information. This paper describes the prevalence of geriatric syndromes, polypharmacy, and readmission rates. Veterans were prescribed an average of 14.7 medications at hospital discharge. Moreover, 75% of Veterans had more than two geriatric syndromes, some of which began during hospitalization. While this effort did not reduce 30-day readmissions, the high prevalence of geriatric syndromes and polypharmacy suggests that future efforts targeting these issues may be necessary to reduce readmissions among Veterans discharged to SNF.

Deficits in Self-Reported Initiation Are AssociatedWith Subsequent Disability in ICU Survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether deficits in a key aspect of executive functioning, namely, initiation, were associated with current and future functional disabilities in intensive care unit survivors. METHODS: A nested substudy within a 2-center prospective observational cohort. We used 3 tests of initiation at 3 and 12 months: the Ruff Total Unique Design, Controlled Oral Word Association, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function initiation. Disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) was measured with the Functional Activities Questionnaire. We used a proportional odds logistic regression model to evaluate the association between initiation and disability. Covariates in the model included age, education, baseline Functional Activities Questionnaire, pre-existing cognitive impairment, comorbidities, admission severity of illness, episodes of hypoxia, and days of severe sepsis. RESULTS: In 195 patients, after adjusting for covariates, only the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function initiation was associated with disability at any time point. Comparing the 25th vs the 75th percentile scores (95% confidence interval) of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function initiation at 3 months, patients with worse initiation scores had 5.062 times the odds (95% confidence interval: 2.539, 10.092) of disability according to the Functional Activities Questionnaire at 3 months, with similar odds at 12 months (odds ratio: 3.476, 95% confidence interval: 1.943, 6.216). Worse Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function initiation scores at 3 months were associated with future disability at 12 months odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 5.079 (2.579, 10.000). CONCLUSIONS: Executive function deficits acquired after a critical illness in the domain of initiation are common in intensive care unit survivors, and when they are identified via self-report tools, they are associated with current and future disability in instrumental activities of daily living.

Validation of the behavioral pain scale to assess pain intensity in adult, intubated postcardiac surgery patients: A cohort observational study - POL-BPS.

Patients after cardiac surgery experience significant pain, but cannot communicate effectively due to opioid analgesia and sedation. Identification of pain with validated behavioral observation tool in patients with limited abilities to self-report pain improves quality of care and prevents suffering. Aim of this study was to validate Polish version of behavioral pain scale (BPS) in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients sedated with dexmedetomidine and morphine after cardiac surgery.Prospective observational cohort study included postoperative cardiac surgery patients, both sedated with dexmedetomidine and unsedated, observed at rest, during a nociceptive procedure (position change) and 10 minutes after intervention. Pain control was achieved using morphine infusion and nonopioid coanalgesia. Pain intensity evaluation included self-report by patient using numeric rating scale (NRS) and BPS assessments carried out by 2 blinded observers.A total of 708 assessments were performed in 59 patients (mean age 68 years), predominantly men (44/59, 75%). Results showed very good interrater correlation between raters (interrater correlation scores >0.87). Self-report NRS scores were obtained from all patients. Correlation between NRS and BPS was relatively strong during nociceptive procedures in all patients for rater A and rater B (Spearman R > 0.65, P < .001). Both mean NRS and BPS scores were significantly higher during nociceptive procedures as compared to assessments at rest, in both sedated and unsedated patients (P < .001).The results of this observational study show that the Polish translation of BPS can be regarded as a useful and validated tool for pain assessment in adult intubated patients. This instrument can be used in both unsedated and sedated cardiac surgery patients with limited communication abilities.

ICU delirium - a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in the intensive care unit.

ICU delirium is a common medical problem occurring in patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). Studies have shown that ICU delirium is associated with increased mortality, prolonged hospitalization, prolonged mechanical ventilation, costs and the occurrence of cognitive disoders after discharge from ICU. The tools available for ICU delirium screening and diagnosis are validated tests available for all members if the medical team (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists). Their use for routine patient assessment is recommended by international medical and scientific societies. They have been implemented as Pain, Agitation, Delirium (PAD) Guidelines by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Apart from monitoring, a strategy of prevention and treatment is recommended, based on non-pharmacological approach (restoration of senses, early mobilization, physiotherapy, improvement in sleep hygiene and family involvement) as well as pharmacological treatment (typical and atypical antipsychotics and dexmedetomidine). In this article, we present the risk factors of ICU delirium, available tools for monitoring, as well as options for prevention and treatment of delirium that can be used to improve care over critically ill patients.