Prospective multicentre multifaceted before-after implementation study of ICU delirium guidelines: a process evaluation

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023.

SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

METHODS

Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers.

RESULTS

Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Monitoring delirium in the intensive care unit: Diagnostic accuracy of the CAM-ICU tool when performed by certified nursing assistants - A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Monitoring delirium in critically ill patients is recognized as a major challenge. Although involving certified nursing assistants could be a valuable help in this field, such strategy has never been formally investigated.

OBJECTIVES

Following theoretical training, we conducted a prospective multicenter study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of a CAM-ICU delirium screening strategy performed by CNAs in clinical settings, compared to parallel blinded evaluations conducted by nurses and physicians.

METHODS

From October 2020 to June 2022, adult intensive care patients admitted in three French University teaching hospitals with Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale ≥-2 were independently assessed for delirium by the three members of the care team (clinical nursing assistant, nurse and physician) using CAM-ICU in a random order. Physician's assessment served as the reference standard for comparisons.

RESULTS

We analyzed results from 268 triplets of CAM-ICU assessments performed sequentially on 203 patients. Prevalence of delirium was 22%. Compared to physician's assessments, clinical nursing assistants demonstrated a sensitivity (Se) of 88% CI95% [80-96] and a specificity (Sp) of 95% [92-98] in detecting delirium. There was no significant difference in the performance of clinical nursing assistants and nurses (Se = 90 % [82-97] p = 0.77, Sp = 98 % [95-100] p = 0.19). We observed high agreement between results obtained by physicians and clinical nursing assistants (ĸ = 0.82) and clinical nursing assistants performance remained consistent in the subgroups at higher risk of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of the CAM-ICU by clinical nursing assistants is feasible and should be seen as an opportunity to increase routine monitoring of delirium in intensive care patients.

IMPLICATION FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Delirium is a severe and underestimated complication of intensive care unit stay. This study results demonstrate the great performance of trained clinical nursing assistants in detecting delirium using the CAM-ICU. Further research is needed to define the most effective role for clinical nursing assistants in the routine management of delirium in intensive care patients.

Delivery of a novel intervention to facilitate liberation from mechanical ventilation in paediatric intensive care: A process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Prolonged mechanical ventilation increases the risk of mortality and morbidity. Optimising sedation and early testing for possible liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) has been shown to reduce time on the ventilator. Alongside a multicentre trial of sedation and ventilation weaning, we conducted a mixed method process evaluation to understand how the intervention content and delivery was linked to trial outcomes.

METHODS

10,495 children admitted to 18 paediatric intensive care units (ICUs) in the United Kingdom participated in a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, with 1955 clinical staff trained to deliver the intervention. The intervention comprised assessment and optimisation of sedation levels, and bedside screening of respiratory parameters to indicate readiness for a spontaneous breathing trial prior to liberation from ventilation. 193 clinical staff were interviewed towards the end of the trial. Interview data were thematically analysed, and quantitative adherence data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The intervention led to a reduced duration of IMV (adjusted median difference- 7.1 hours, 95% CI -9.6 to -5.3, p = 0.01). Overall intervention adherence was 75% (range 59-85%). Ease and flexibility of the intervention promoted it use; designated responsibilities, explicit pathways of decision-making and a shared language for communication fostered proactivity and consistency towards extubation. Delivery of the intervention was hindered by established hospital and unit organisational and patient care routines, clinician preference and absence of clinical leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

The SANDWICH trial showed a significant, although small, reduction in duration of IMV. Findings suggest that greater direction in decision-making pathways, robust embedment of new practice in unit routine, and capitalising on the skills of Advanced Nurse Practitioners and physiotherapists would have contributed to greater intervention effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.

Prognostic significance of delirium subtypes in critically ill medical and surgical patients: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic implication of delirium subtypes in critically ill medical and surgical patients is scarcely investigated. The objective was to determine how delirium subtypes are associated with hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis on data from a prospective multicenter study aimed at implementation of delirium-oriented measures, conducted between 2012 and 2015 in The Netherlands. We included adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to the medical or surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Exclusion criteria were neurological admission diagnosis, persistent coma or ICU readmissions. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, and delirium subtypes (hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed) were classified using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The main outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, coma, mechanical ventilation, and use of antipsychotics, sedatives, benzodiazepines and opioids.

RESULTS

Delirium occurred in 381 (24.4%) of 1564 patients (52.5% hypoactive, 39.1% mixed, 7.3% hyperactive). After case-mix adjustment, patients with mixed delirium had higher hospital mortality than non-delirious patients (OR 3.09, 95%CI 1.79-5.33, p = 0.001), whereas hypoactive patients did not (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.71-2.55, p = 0.37). Similar results were found for ICU mortality. Compared to non-delirious patients, both subtypes had longer ICU stay, more coma, increased mechanical ventilation frequency and duration, and received more antipsychotics, sedatives, benzodiazepines and opioids. Except for coma and benzodiazepine use, the most unfavourable outcomes were observed in patients with mixed delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mixed delirium had the most unfavourable outcomes, including higher mortality, compared with no delirium. These differences argue for distinguishing delirium subtypes in clinical practice and future research. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952899.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

RESULTS

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.