The delirium and population health informatics cohort study protocol: ascertaining the determinants and outcomes from delirium in a whole population.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects 25% of older inpatients and is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and future dementia. However, no population studies have systematically ascertained cognitive function before, cognitive deficits during, and cognitive impairment after delirium. Therefore, there is a need to address the following question: does delirium, and its features (including severity, duration, and presumed aetiologies), predict long-term cognitive impairment, independent of cognitive impairment at baseline? METHODS: The Delirium and Population Health Informatics Cohort (DELPHIC) study is an observational population-based cohort study based in the London Borough of Camden. It is recruiting 2000 individuals aged ≥70 years and prospectively following them for two years, including daily ascertainment of all inpatient episodes for delirium. Daily inpatient assessments include the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, the Observational Scale for Level of Arousal, and the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility. Data on delirium aetiology is also collected. The primary outcome is the change in the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status at two years. DISCUSSION: DELPHIC is the first population sample to assess older persons before, during and after hospitalisation. The cumulative incidence of delirium in the general population aged ≥70 will be described. DELPHIC offers the opportunity to quantify the impact of delirium on cognitive and functional outcomes. Overall, DELPHIC will provide a real-time public health observatory whereby information from primary, secondary, intermediate and social care can be integrated to understand how acute illness is linked to health and social care outcomes.

Increasing delirium skills at the front door: results from a repeated survey on delirium knowledge and attitudes.

BACKGROUND: delirium is under-recognised in comparison to other common and serious acute disorders. A 2006 survey of UK junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) identified poor knowledge of the diagnostic criteria and treatment of delirium. We hypothesised that increased prominence accorded to delirium in the form of national initiatives and guidelines may have had an impact on understanding among junior doctors. OBJECTIVE: we repeated a multi-centre survey of knowledge of and attitudes to delirium in junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) assessing unselected acute medical presentations (the 'medical take'). DESIGN: questionnaire-based survey in 48 acute hospitals in UK and Ireland. METHODS: we used questionnaires designed to test understanding of delirium, including prevalence, knowledge of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, use of specific screening tools, association with adverse outcomes and pharmacological management. RESULTS: one thousand two hundred and fifteen trainee physicians participated. Compared with the 2006 cohort, improvements were seen in 9 of 17 knowledge-based questions and overall score improved in the 2013 cohort. Nonetheless, significant deficits in knowledge, particularly for the diagnostic criteria for delirium, remained. CONCLUSIONS: despite improvements in some aspects of delirium knowledge, the diagnostic criteria for delirium remain poorly understood. Challenges remain in ensuring adequate training for junior doctors in delirium.

Specialty experience in geriatric medicine is associated with a small increase in knowledge of delirium.

BACKGROUND: delirium is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Understanding of delirium among doctors in medical and ICU settings has previously been shown to be low. We hypothesised that junior doctors who had gained experience in geriatrics, neurology or psychiatry may have an increased knowledge of delirium. METHODS: we used data from a large multi-centre study of junior doctors conducted between December 2006 and January 2007 which is, to date, the largest survey of understanding of delirium among junior doctors. The original survey used a questionnaire within which certain key items led to a correct or incorrect answer. Total correct answers were recorded giving a maximum total knowledge score of 17 for each participant. The relationship between total knowledge score achieved on the questionnaire and time since qualification; specialty experience in geriatric medicine, psychiatry and/or neurology and self-reported experience with the Confusion Assessment Method (independent variables) were modelled using linear regression. RESULTS: around half (53.2%; 399 of 750) of those surveyed stated that they had experience in geriatric medicine. In contrast only 4.1 and 8.0% of respondents had experience in psychiatry and neurology, respectively. Experience in geriatric medicine was significantly associated with a modest increase in correct answers (4.7 versus 4.3 points, P = 0.020). No other variables were significantly associated with better scores. CONCLUSION: experience in geriatric medicine leads to a small improvement in understanding of delirium among junior doctors.