Delirium management by palliative medicine specialists: a survey from the association for palliative medicine of Great Britain and Ireland

Exploring Antipsychotic Use for Delirium Management in Adults in Hospital, Sub-Acute Rehabilitation and Aged Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

International guidelines discourage antipsychotic use for delirium; however, concerns persist about their continued use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the prevalence and patterns of antipsychotic use in delirium management with regard to best-practice recommendations. Primary outcomes investigated were prevalence of use, antipsychotic type, dosage and clinical indication.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: studies of any design that examined antipsychotic use to manage delirium in adults in critical care, acute care, palliative care, rehabilitation, and aged care were included. Studies of patients in acute psychiatric care, with psychiatric illness or pre-existing antipsychotic use were excluded.

INFORMATION SOURCES

we searched five health databases on 16 August, 2023 (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, APA PsycInfo, ProQuest Health and Medical Collection) using MeSH terms and relevant keywords, including 'delirium' and 'antipsychotic'. Risk of bias: as no included studies were randomised controlled trials, all studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

descriptive data were extracted in Covidence and synthesised in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Included studies: 39 studies published between March 2004 and August 2023 from 13 countries (n = 1,359,519 patients). Most study designs were retrospective medical record audits (n = 16).

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

in 18 studies, participants' mean age was ≥65 years (77.79, ±5.20). Palliative care had the highest average proportion of patients with delirium managed with antipsychotics (70.87%, ±33.81%); it was lower and varied little between intensive care unit (53.53%, ±19.73%) and non-intensive care unit settings [medical, surgical and any acute care wards] (56.93%, ±26.44%) and was lowest in in-patient rehabilitation (17.8%). Seventeen different antipsychotics were reported on. In patients aged ≥65 years, haloperidol was the most frequently used and at higher than recommended mean daily doses (2.75 mg, ±2.21 mg). Other antipsychotics commonly administered were olanzapine (mean 11 mg, ±8.54 mg), quetiapine (mean 64.23 mg, ±43.20 mg) and risperidone (mean 0.97 mg, ±0.64 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics to manage delirium is strongly discouraged in international guidelines. Antipsychotic use in delirium care is a risk for adverse health outcomes and a longer duration of delirium, especially in older people. However, this study has provided evidence that clinicians continue to use antipsychotics for delirium management, the dose, frequency and duration of which are often outside evidence-based guideline recommendations. Clinicians continue to choose antipsychotics to manage delirium symptoms to settle agitation and maintain patient and staff safety, particularly in situations where workload pressures are high. Sustained efforts are needed at the individual, team and organisational levels to educate, train and support clinicians to prioritise non-pharmacological interventions early before deciding to use antipsychotics. This could prevent delirium and avert escalation in behavioural symptoms that often lead to antipsychotic use.

Improving the Detection, Assessment, Management and Prevention of Delirium in Hospices (the DAMPen-D study): Feasibility study of a flexible and scalable implementation strategy to deliver guideline-adherent delirium care

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a complex condition, stressful for all involved. Although highly prevalent in palliative care settings, it remains underdiagnosed and associated with poor outcomes. Guideline-adherent delirium care may improve its detection, assessment and management.

AIM

To inform a future definitive study that tests whether an implementation strategy designed to improve guideline-adherent delirium care in palliative care settings improves patient outcomes (reduced proportion of in-patient days with delirium).

DESIGN

With Patient Involvement members, we conducted a feasibility study to assess the acceptability of and engagement with the implementation strategy by hospice staff (intervention), and whether clinical record data collection of process (e.g. guideline-adherent delirium care) and clinical outcomes (evidence of delirium using a validated chart-based instrument;) pre- and 12-weeks post-implementation of the intervention would be possible.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In-patient admissions in three English hospices.

RESULTS

Between June 2021 and December 2022, clinical record data were extracted from 300 consecutive admissions. Despite data collection during COVID-19, target clinical record data collection (n = 300) was achieved. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a delirium episode during in-patient stay at both timepoints. A 6% absolute reduction in proportion of delirium days in those with a delirium episode was observed. Post-implementation improvements in guideline-adherent metrics include: clinical delirium diagnosis 15%-28%; delirium risk assessment 0%-16%; screening on admission 7%-35%.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of data on delirium outcomes and guideline-adherence from clinical records is feasible. The signal of patient benefit supports formal evaluation in a large-scale study.

Improving the Detection, Assessment, Management and Prevention of Delirium in Hospices (the DAMPen-D study): protocol for a co-design and feasibility study of a flexible and scalable implementation strategy to deliver guideline-adherent delirium care

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is a complex condition in which altered mental state and cognition causes severe distress and poor clinical outcomes for patients and families, anxiety and stress for the health professionals and support staff providing care, and higher care costs. Hospice patients are at high risk of developing delirium, but there is significant variation in care delivery. The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of an implementation strategy (designed to help deliver good practice delirium guidelines), participant recruitment and data collection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Three work packages in three hospices in the UK with public involvement in codesign, study management and stakeholder groups: (1) experience-based codesign to adapt an existing theoretically-informed implementation strategy (Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC)) to implement delirium guidelines in hospices; (2) feasibility study to explore ability to collect demographic, diagnostic and delirium management data from clinical records (n=300), explanatory process data (number of staff engaged in CLECC activities and reasons for non-engagement) and cost data (staff and volunteer hours and pay-grades engaged in implementation activities) and (3) realist process evaluation to assess the acceptability and flexibility of the implementation strategy (preimplementation and postimplementation surveys with hospice staff and management, n=30 at each time point; interviews with hospice staff and management, n=15). Descriptive statistics, rapid thematic analysis and a realist logic of analysis will be used be used to analyse quantitative and qualitative data, as appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval obtained: Hull York Medical School Ethics Committee (Ref 21/23), Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee Wales REC7 (Ref 21/WA/0180) and Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (Ref 21/CAG/0071). Written informed consent will be obtained from interview participants. A results paper will be submitted to an open access peer-reviewed journal and a lay summary shared with study site staff and stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN55416525.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement.

AIM

To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions.

DESIGN

Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

DATA SOURCES

We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions.

RESULTS

From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Clinicians' delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey

BACKGROUND

Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium.

AIM

To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians' delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

DESIGN

Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals' organisations.

RESULTS

Most of the sample (n = 475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents' delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%, p < 0.001); changed delirium treatment (73% vs 53%, p = 0.017); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%, p < 0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%, p < 0.001: antipsychotics 79% vs 44%, p < 0.001; benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians' use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work.

The experience of delirium in palliative care settings for patients, family, clinicians and volunteers: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in palliative care settings and is distressing for patients, their families and clinicians. To develop effective interventions, we need first to understand current delirium care in this setting.

AIM

To understand patient, family, clinicians' and volunteers' experience of delirium and its care in palliative care contexts.

DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018102417).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (2000-2020) for qualitative studies exploring experiences of delirium or its care in specialist palliative care services. Study selection and quality appraisal were independently conducted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 21 papers describing 16 studies were included. In quality appraisal, trustworthiness (rigour of methods used) was assessed as high (n = 5), medium (n = 8) or low (n = 3). Three major themes were identified: interpretations of delirium and their influence on care; clinicians' responses to the suffering of patients with delirium and the roles of the family in delirium care. Nursing staff and other clinicians had limited understanding of delirium as a medical condition with potentially modifiable causes. Practice focused on alleviating patient suffering through person-centred approaches, which could be challenging with delirious patients, and medication use. Treatment decisions were also influenced by the distress of family and clinicians and resource limitations. Family played vital roles in delirium care.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased understanding of non-pharmacological approaches to delirium prevention and management, as well as support for clinicians and families, are important to enable patients' multi-dimensional needs to be met.

Validation of the 4AT tool for delirium assessment in specialist palliative care settings: protocol of a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a serious and distressing neuropsychiatric condition, which is prevalent across all palliative care settings. Hypoactive delirium is particularly common, but difficult to recognize, partly due to overlapping symptoms with depression and dementia. Delirium screening tools can lead to earlier identification and hence better management of patients. The 4AT (4 'A's Test) is a brief tool for delirium detection, designed for use in clinical practice. It has been validated in 17 studies in over 3,700 patients. The test is currently used in specialist palliative care units, but has not been validated in this setting. The aim of the study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection against a reference standard, in hospice inpatients.

METHODS

240 participants will be recruited from the inpatient units of two hospices in Scotland. If a patient lacks capacity to consent, agreement will be sought from a legal proxy. Each participant will complete the 4AT and a reference standard assessment based on the diagnostic delirium criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This will be supplemented by tests of cognition and attention, including reverse days of the week, counting down from 20 to 1, Vigilance 'A', the Observational Scale for Level of Arousal, the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98. The assessments will be conducted in a randomized order by two independent clinicians, who will be blinded to the results until both are complete. Primary outcomes will be the sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT in detecting delirium.

DISCUSSION

The findings will inform clinical practice regarding delirium assessment in palliative care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN97417474 (21/02/2020).

Delirium screening tools validated in the context of palliative care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a distressing neuropsychiatric disorder affecting patients in palliative care. Although many delirium screening tools exist, their utility, and validation within palliative care settings has not undergone systematic review.

AIM

To systematically review studies that validate delirium screening tools conducted in palliative care settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019125481). A risk of bias assessment via Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was performed.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were systematically searched (January 1, 1982-May 3, 2020). Quantitative studies validating a screening tool in adult palliative care patient populations were included. Studies involving alcohol withdrawal, critical or perioperative care were excluded.

RESULTS

Dual-reviewer screening of 3749 unique titles and abstracts identified 95 studies for full-text review and of these, 17 studies of 14 screening tools were included (n = 3496 patients). Data analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity in patient demographics and variability in screening and diagnostic practices that limited generalizability between study populations and care settings. A risk of bias assessment revealed methodological and reporting deficits, with only 3/17 studies at low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The processes of selecting a delirium screening tool and determining optimal screening practices in palliative care are complex. One tool is unlikely to fit the needs of the entire palliative care population across all palliative care settings. Further research should be directed at evaluating and/or adapting screening tools and practices to fit the needs of specific palliative care settings and populations.

Managing delirium in terminally ill patients: perspective of palliative care nurse specialists

Delirium occurs frequently at end of life. Palliative care clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are involved in community palliative care provision. Many patients prefer being cared for at home, yet managing delirium in this setting presents unique challenges, potentially resulting in emergency hospital or hospice admission. We examined the experiences and practice of palliative care CNSs managing delirium in the community; 10 interviews were undertaken. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Challenges to delirium management in the community included limited time with patients, reliance on families and access to medications. Assessment tools were not used routinely; time limited visits and inconsistent retesting were perceived barriers. Management approaches differed depending on CNSs' previous delirium education. Strategies to prevent delirium were not used. Community delirium management presents challenges; support surrounding these could be beneficial. Routine assessment tool use and delirium prevention strategies should be included in further education and research.

Delirium screening practice in specialist palliative care units: a survey

OBJECTIVES

Delirium is common and distressing in palliative care settings. This survey aims to describe current practice regarding delirium identification in specialist palliative care units (SPCU), such as inpatient hospices, in the UK.

METHODS

An 18-item anonymous online survey was distributed by Hospice UK to their network of clinical leads (n=223), and to their research mailing list (n=228). The survey was also sent to the chair of the Hospice UK executive clinical leads forum for direct dissemination to forum representatives (n=20). Clinical leads and forum representatives were asked to distribute the survey to healthcare staff in their SPCUs.

RESULTS

220 SPCU staff (48% nurses; 31% doctors; 10% healthcare assistants) completed the survey. Approximately half reported using clinical judgement alone to screen (97/204; 48%) and/or diagnose (124/220; 56%) delirium. Over a third used an assessment tool to screen for delirium (76/204; 37%). The majority (150/220; 68%) reported screening in response to clinical symptoms, while few reported routine on-admission (11/220; 5%) or daily-during-admission (12/220; 6%) screening. Most respondents had received some training on delirium (137/220; 62%). However, 130/220 (59%) said their SPCU did not have a training programme for delirium screening and only 79/220 (36%) reported that their SPCU had delirium clinical guidelines. The main barriers to routine screening included: lack of delirium training, lack of guidelines and complexity of patient's conditions.

CONCLUSION

There is variation in practice for delirium screening and diagnosis in SPCUs. Clinical guidelines for delirium, including consensus on which screening tools to use, are needed for this setting.