The Impact of Nursing Delirium Preventive Interventions in the ICU: A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with deleterious outcomes. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended in current delirium guidelines, but their effects have not been unequivocally established. Objectives: To determine the effects of a multicomponent nursing intervention program on delirium in the ICU. Methods: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in ICUs of 10 centers. Adult critically ill surgical, medical, or trauma patients at high risk of developing delirium were included. A multicomponent nursing intervention program focusing on modifiable risk factors was implemented as standard of care. The primary outcome was the number of delirium-free and coma-free days alive in 28 days after ICU admission. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,749 patients were included. Time spent on interventions per 8-hour shift was median (interquartile range) 38 (14-116) minutes in the intervention period and median 32 (13-73) minutes in the control period (P = 0.44). Patients in the intervention period had a median of 23 (4-27) delirium-free and coma-free days alive compared with a median of 23 (5-27) days for patients in the control group (mean difference, -1.21 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.84 to 0.42 d; P = 0.15). In addition, the number of delirium days was similar: median 2 (1-4) days (ratio of medians, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.09; P = 0.27). Conclusions: In this large randomized controlled trial in adult ICU patients, a limited increase in the use of nursing interventions was achieved, and no change in the number of delirium-free and coma-free days alive in 28 days could be determined. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03002701).

Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of -3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS ≤ 0 was secondary to a sedating medication. Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. RESULTS: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (19.3%), RASS = -2 (35.1%); RASS = -3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (15.8%), RASS = -2 (26.6%); RASS = -3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of -3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of -1 or -2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02518646.

External Validation of Two Models to Predict Delirium in Critically Ill Adults Using Either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for Delirium Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate two delirium prediction models (early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium) using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. DESIGN: Prospective, multinational cohort study. SETTING: Eleven ICUs from seven countries in three continents. PATIENTS: Consecutive, delirium-free adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 6 hours in whom delirium could be reliably assessed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The predictors included in each model were collected at the time of ICU admission (early prediction model for ICU delirium) or within 24 hours of ICU admission (recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium). Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Discrimination was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The predictive performance was determined for the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist cohort, and compared with both prediction models' original reported performance. A total of 1,286 Confusion Assessment Method-ICU-assessed patients and 892 Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist-assessed patients were included. Compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the original study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the early prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71) for delirium as assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66-0.74) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Compared with the original area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) for assessing delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Both the early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium are externally validated using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. Per delirium prediction model, both assessment tools showed a similar moderate-to-good statistical performance. These results support the use of either the early prediction model for ICU delirium or recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium in ICUs around the world regardless of whether delirium is evaluated with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

Development and Validation of an Abbreviated Questionnaire to Easily Measure Cognitive Failure in ICU Survivors: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate an abbreviated version of the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire that can be used by patients as part of self-assessment to measure functional cognitive outcome in ICU survivors. DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter observational study. SETTING: The ICUs of two Dutch university hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult ICU survivors. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cognitive functioning was evaluated between 12 and 24 months after ICU discharge using the full 25-item Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ-25). Incomplete CFQ-25 questionnaires were excluded from analysis. Forward selection in a linear regression model was used in hospital A to assess which of the CFQ-25 items should be included to prevent a significant loss of correlation between an abbreviated and the full CFQ-25. Subsequently, the performance of an abbreviated Cognitive Failure Questionnaire was determined in hospital B using Pearson's correlation. A Bland-Altman plot was used to examine whether the reduced-item outcome scores of an abbreviated Cognitive Failure Questionnaire were a replacement for the full CFQ-25 outcome scores. Among 1,934 ICU survivors, 1,737 were included, 819 in hospital A, 918 in hospital B. The Pearson's correlation between the abbreviated 14-item Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ-14) and the CFQ-25 was 0.99. The mean of the difference scores was -0.26, and 95% of the difference scores fell within +5 and -5.5 on a 100-point maximum score. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use the abbreviated CFQ-14 to measure self-reported cognitive failure in ICU survivors as this questionnaire has a similar performance as the full CFQ-25.

Delirium prediction in the intensive care unit: comparison of two delirium prediction models.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction  model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. METHODS: This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. RESULTS: In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of - 2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. CONCLUSIONS: While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

Determination of the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention program to prevent delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: A modified RAND Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients and associated with poor outcome. In non-ICU patients a multicomponent intervention program with non-pharmacological interventions has shown to reduce delirium. Currently, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effects of such a program in ICU patients. We developed a draft program based on a review. As most studies were conducted in non-ICU patients, the feasibility of the program in ICU patients needs to be assessed before investigating its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine experts' opinion and to achieve group consensus on the feasibility and completeness of the multicomponent intervention program for ICU patients. METHODS: A modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Delphi study was used. A total of 38 experts were selected following purposive sampling. Round one informed the experts about the draft program and asked for their opinion about its feasibility and completeness. In round two the experts were asked to reconsider their opinion based on changes made, and to rank the interventions in order of importance. The feasibility was scored using a 9-point Likert scale. A disagreement index (DI) and panel median were calculated to determine the level of agreement. RESULTS: During Delphi round one 100% of the questionnaires was completed, during round two 79%. After two rounds the experts agreed on the feasibility of the interventions targeting sleep deprivation (panel median 7.00, DI 0.26), immobility (panel median 8.00, DI 0.22), visual and hearing impairment (panel median 8.00, DI 0.19), and cognitive impairment (panel median 8.00, DI 0.23), except for cognitive training (panel median 5.00, DI 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: During this study a feasible multicomponent intervention program to prevent ICU delirium was developed based on expert consensus. As no consensus was reached on cognitive training, a pilot study is planned to determine the feasibility of cognitive training in the ICU.

'Providing good and comfortable care by building a bond of trust': nurses views regarding their role in patients' perception of safety in the intensive care unit.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe and understand intensive care unit (ICU) nurses' views regarding their role in ICU patients' perception of safety. BACKGROUND: Feeling safe is an important issue for ICU patients. Not feeling safe may result in adverse effects including traumatic experiences, having nightmares and feeling depressed. Nursing care plays a major role in patients' perception of safety. However, it is unknown whether ICU nurses are aware of this role. DESIGN: A grounded theory approach following Corbin and Strauss. METHODS: A total of 13 participants were included in the study following maximum variation sampling, by selecting ICU nurses who differed in gender, age, work experience as registered ICU nurse, and were employed in different IC units. In-depth interviews were performed using open-ended questions guided by a topic list with broad question areas. Data collection and analysis were executed during an iterative process. RESULTS: The core category, building a bond of trust to provide good and comfortable care, arose from four main categories: explaining and informing ICU patients, using patients' family bond, ICU nurses' attitudes and expertise, and creating physical safety. CONCLUSION: The ICU nurses stated that they were not explicitly aware of ICU patients' perception of safety, but that they strived to provide good and comfortable care, through building a bond of trust with their patients. According to the nurses, a bond of trust is essential for patients to feel safe in the ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The importance of feeling safe in ICU patients should be addressed within the education and clinical practice of ICU nurses, to ensure that they become aware of ICU patients' perception of safety.

Generalist-Specialist Collaboration in Primary Care for Frail Older Persons: A Promising Model for the Future.

OBJECTIVES: The complex care needs of frail older persons living at home is a major challenge for health care systems worldwide. One possible solution is to employ a primary care physician (PCP) with additional geriatric expertise. In the Netherlands, elderly care physicians (ECPs), who traditionally work in nursing homes, are increasingly encouraged to utilize their expertise within primary care. However, little is known about how PCPs and ECPs collaborate. Therefore, we aimed to unravel the nature of the current PCP-ECP collaboration in primary care for frail older persons, and to identify key concepts for success. DESIGN: A qualitative multiple case study with semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A selection of 22 participants from 7 "established collaboration practices" within the primary care setting in the Netherlands, including at least 1 ECP, 1 PCP, and 1 other health care professional for every included established collaboration practice. METHODS: Transcripts of individual interviews were analyzed using largely double and independent open and axial coding, and formulation of themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed 4 key concepts for success: (1) clarification of roles and expectations (ie, patient-centered care and embedding in existing care networks), (2) trust, respect, and familiarity as drivers for collaboration (ie, mutual trust through knowing each other and having shared goals); (3) framework for regular communication (ie, structural meetings and a shared vision); and (4) government, payer, and organization support (ie, financial support and emphasis on the collaboration's urgency by organizations and national policy makers). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: For a successful generalist-specialist collaboration, health care professionals need to invest in building relationships and mutual trust, and incorporating their efforts in the existing care networks to guarantee patient-centeredness. When provided with reimbursement and appreciation, this collaboration is a promising change in general practice to improve the care and outcomes of frail older persons.

Feasibility of Cognitive Training in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs frequently in the intensive care unit and is associated with detrimental consequences. Cognitive training is a promising, nonpharmacologic, preventive intervention, but it is unknown whether cognitive training is feasible for patients in intensive care units. OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility for both nurses and patients of using cognitive training exercises for intensive care unit patients. METHODS: A pilot study of a set of cognitive training exercises in a large, academic intensive care unit. Feasibility of the exercises, operationalized as practicability and burden for the patient and the nurse, was tested in multiple rounds and evaluated using Likert scales and open-ended questions, patients' vital signs, and time investment. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients were included. During the first round, 11 exercises were separately tested by nursing researchers in 44 cooperative patients (50% with delirium). Four exercises were evaluated as burdensome and were excluded. Vital signs did not alter during execution. In a second round, the remaining exercises were tested in 31 patients (52% with delirium) by their attending nurse. All exercises were rated as practicable and not burdensome by the patients and the nurses. Total time investment per exercise was a median 4.5 (interquartile range, 3.0-5.0) minutes. CONCLUSION: Cognitive training exercises used in this study were feasible for intensive care unit patients (including cooperative patients with delirium) and their nurses. More research is needed to determine the clinical effect of the exercises on delirium outcome.

The impact of nUrsiNg DEliRium Preventive INnterventions in the Intensive Care Unit (UNDERPIN-ICU): A study protocol for a multi-centre, stepped wedge randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common disorder in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients and is associated with serious short- and long-term consequences, including re-intubations, ICU readmissions, prolonged ICU and hospital stay, persistent cognitive problems, and higher mortality rates. Considering the high incidence of delirium and its consequences, prevention of delirium is imperative. This study focuses on a program of standardized nursing and physical therapy interventions to prevent delirium in the ICU, called UNDERPIN-ICU (nUrsiNg DEliRium Preventive INterventions in the ICU). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the UNDERPIN-ICU program on the number of delirium-coma-free days in 28days and several secondary outcomes, such as delirium incidence, the number of days of survival in 28 and 90days and delirium-related outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multicenter stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Eight to ten Dutch ICUs will implement the UNDERPIN-ICU program in a randomized order. Every two months the UNDERPIN-ICU program will be implemented in an additional ICU following a two months period of staff training. UNDERPIN-ICU consists of standardized protocols focusing on several modifiable risk factors for delirium, including cognitive impairment, sleep deprivation, immobility and visual and hearing impairment. PARTICIPANTS: ICU patients aged ≥18years (surgical, medical, or trauma) and at high risk for delirium, E-PRE-DELIRIC ≥35%, will be included, unless delirium was detected prior ICU admission, expected length of ICU stay is less then one day or when delirium assessment is not possible. DISCUSSION: For every intervention the balance between putative benefit and potential unwanted side effects needs to be considered. In non-ICU patients, it has been shown that a similar program resulted in a significant reduction of delirium incidence and duration. Recent small studies using multi component interventions to prevent delirium in ICU patients have also shown beneficial effect, without unwanted side effects. We therefore feel that the proportionality of potential positive effects of the UNDERPIN-ICU program, weighed against potential unwanted side effects is favourable. Since this has not been rigorously proven in ICU patients, we will study the effects of this program in ICU patients using a stepped wedge design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the clinical trials registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/. REPORTING METHOD: Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trails (SPIRIT).

Factors promoting intensive care patients' perception of feeling safe: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Feeling safe in the intensive care unit is of great importance while recovering from critical illness. Moreover, feeling unsafe can result in distress. In order to meet the safety needs of intensive care patients as well as to stimulate their recovery and prevent distress, nurses must be aware of factors promoting patients' perception of feeling safe during an intensive care admission. To our knowledge, there is no synthesis of these factors available as yet. OBJECTIVE: To systematically describe the factors that promote patients' perception of feeling safe in an intensive care unit. DESIGN: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched up to March 2012. REVIEW METHODS: Methodological quality was assessed by two authors using the QualSyst tool. Data from the included studies were extracted into a customised data extraction form. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 1326 records. Ultimately, eleven studies were relevant to the research question and included in the review. No studies needed to be excluded because of low quality scores. Analysis of the factors in these studies resulted in four overarching themes that promote intensive care patients' perception of feeling safe. These themes were: nursing care, patients' issues, relatives, and technological support. Nursing care was described most frequently as an important factor promoting patients' feeling of safety in an intensive care unit. Relatives were the link between intensive care patients and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses can increase the perception of feeling safe in critically ill patients by taking into account the promoting factors described in this review. By being aware of these factors nurses can improve quality of care in their intensive care unit.