Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients

Applicability of the interventions recommended for patients at risk or with delirium in medical and post-acute settings: a systematic review and a Nominal Group Technique study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common condition during hospitalisation that should be prevented and treated. Several recommendations have been established to date, whereas few studies have investigated their applicability in daily practice for medical and post-acute settings.

AIM

The aim of this research exercise was to emerge the applicability of the interventions recommended by studies in the daily care of patients at risk or with delirium cared in medical and post-acute settings.

METHODS

The study was organised in three phases. A systematic literature review according to Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was conducted (January-February 2021). Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Psychological Information Database, and the Joanna Briggs Institute databases were searched. Primary and secondary studies were evaluated in their methodological quality with the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation. Then, the interventions identified were assessed in their applicability using the Nominal Group Technique who ranked their judgement on a four-point Likert scale from 1 (totally inapplicable) to 4 (totally applicable). Qualitative feedbacks were also considered, and a validation of the final list was performed by the Nominal Group.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included producing a list of 96 interventions categorised into four macro-areas (prevention, non-pharmacological, communication and pharmacological management). The Nominal Group identified 51 interventions (average score > 3.5) as applicable in medical and post-acute settings. Then, through a process of re-reading, and revising according to the comments provided by the Nominal Group, a list of 35 interventions out of the initial 96 were judged as applicable.

CONCLUSION

Applicability should be assessed with experts in the field to understand the involved factors. One-third of interventions have been judged as applicable in the Italian context; the nurses' expertise, the work environment features, and the time required for each intervention in a high workload setting may prevent the full applicability of the interventions recommended by the literature.

Outcomes Following Implementation of a Hospital-Wide, Multicomponent Delirium Care Pathway

BACKGROUND

Delirium is associated with poor clinical outcomes that could be improved with targeted interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a multicomponent delirium care pathway implemented across seven specialty nonintensive care units is associated with reduced hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary objectives were reductions in total direct cost, odds of 30-day hospital readmission, and rates of safety attendant and restraint use.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 22,708 hospitalized patients (11,018 preintervention) aged ≥50 years encompassing seven nonintensive care units: neurosciences, medicine, cardiology, general and specialty surgery, hematology-oncology, and transplant. The multicomponent delirium care pathway included a nurse-administered delirium risk assessment at admission, nurse-administered delirium screening scale every shift, and a multicomponent delirium intervention. The primary study outcome was LOS for all units combined and the medicine unit separately. Secondary outcomes included total direct cost, odds of 30-day hospital readmission, and rates of safety attendant and restraint use.

RESULTS

Adjusted mean LOS for all units combined decreased by 2% post intervention (proportional change, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P = .0087). Medicine unit adjusted LOS decreased by 9% (proportional change, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .028). For all units combined, adjusted odds of 30-day readmission decreased by 14% (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .0002). Medicine unit adjusted cost decreased by 7% (proportional change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96; P = .0002).

CONCLUSION

This multicomponent hospital-wide delirium care pathway intervention is associated with reduced hospital LOS, especially for patients on the medicine unit. Odds of 30-day readmission decreased throughout the entire cohort.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common clinical syndrome defined as alterations in attention with an additional disturbance in cognition or perception, which develop over a short period of time and tend to fluctuate during the course of the episode. Delirium is commonly treated in hospitals or community settings and is often associated with multiple adverse outcomes such as increased cost, morbidity, and even mortality. The first-line intervention involves a multicomponent non-pharmacological approach that includes ensuring effective communication and reorientation in addition to providing reassurance or a suitable care environment. There are currently no drugs approved specifically for the treatment of delirium. Clinically, however, various medications are employed to provide symptomatic relief, such as antipsychotic medications and cholinesterase inhibitors, among others.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for treating people with established delirium in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, which is the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 26 October 2017. We also cross-checked the reference lists of included studies to identify any potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, reported in English or Chinese, which compared cholinesterase inhibitors to placebo or other drugs intended to treat people with established delirium in a non-ICU setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were duration of delirium, severity of delirium, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were use of rescue medications, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, institutionalisation, mortality, cost of intervention, leaving the study early, and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one study involving 15 participants from the UK. The included participants were diagnosed with delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Eight males and seven females were included, with a mean age of 82.5 years. Seven of the 15 participants had comorbid dementia at baseline. The risk of bias was low in all domains.The study compared rivastigmine with placebo. We did not find any clear differences between the two groups in terms of duration of delirium (MD -3.6, 95% CI -15.6 to 8.4), adverse events (nausea, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.29), use of rescue medications (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1), mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.56), and leaving the study early (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.07 to 11.54). Evidence was not available regarding the severity of delirium, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, cost of intervention, or other predefined secondary outcomes.The quality of evidence is low due to the very small sample size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings. No clear benefits or harms associated with cholinesterase inhibitors were observed when compared with placebo due to the lack of data. More trials are required.