Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27646394›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2016

[Knowledge and implementation of the S3 guideline on delirium management in Germany].

T Saller, V V Dossow, K Hofmann-Kiefer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Study protocol to improve the quality of delirium management in intensive care].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. [Delirium in geriatric urology patients].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T SallerKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Nußbaumstraße 20, 80336, München, Deutschland. tsaller@med.lmu.de.
V V DossowKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Nußbaumstraße 20, 80336, München, Deutschland.
K Hofmann-KieferKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Nußbaumstraße 20, 80336, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is a common complication in critical care. The syndrome is often underestimated due to its potentially no less dangerous course as a hypoactive delirium. Therefore, current guidelines ask for a structured, regular and routine screening in all intensive care units. If delirium is diagnosed, symptomatic therapy should be initiated promptly.

objectivesThe aim of the current study was to evaluate recent German anesthetists' strategies regarding delirium care compared to the German guidelines for sedation and delirium in intensive care.

methodsIn an online survey German hospitals' senior anesthetists (n = 922) were interviewed anonymously between May and June 2015 regarding guideline use in delirium management in German intensive care units. In 33 direct questions the anesthetists were invited to answer items regarding the structure of their hospitals, intensive care and delirium therapy in order to review their knowledge of the German delirium guidelines that expired in 2014.

resultsThe 249 senior anesthetists who responded to the survey, can be associated with (or represent) a quarter of German intensive care beds and cases, respectively. In every tenth clinic that runs an intensive care unit the guideline was unknown. In three of four intensive care units physicians specified a preferred delirium score, the CAM-ICU (49.4 %) is used most frequently. With knowledge of the guidelines more often a recommended delirium score is used (p = 0.017). However, only 53.6 % of the respondents ascertain a score every eight hours and 36 % have no facility for standardized documentation in the records. At intensive care rounds, a possible diagnosis of delirium is an inherent part in only 34.9 % of the responders even with guideline knowledge. The particular gold standard for the therapy of delirium (alphaagonists for vegetative symptoms; 89.6 %, benzodiazepines for anxiety, 77.5 %; antipsychotics in 86.7 % for psychotic symptoms) is implemented more often with growing knowledge of the guidelines. The latter applies to the implementation of structured programs for delirium prophylaxis, cognition and therapy.

conclusionFor the first time, this study documents knowledge and implementation of the German S3 guidelines for delirium in intensive care. Overall, the guidelines for delirium care are less well executed than those for sedation. With growing knowledge of the guidelines, diagnosis and treatment of delirium fits the guidelines more frequently. The facility to document a delirium score in intensive records is insufficient. Especially a nursing-based delirium strategy could possibly improve implementation of the guidelines, claiming an eight-hour screening and documentation. However, the small number of hospitals that have integrated the guidelines into in-house standard operating procedures (40 %) shows urgent need for optimization. A re-evaluation involving all relevant caretakers could probably improve the implementation of guidelines in intensive care and perioperative medicine.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologistsAnxietyCritical CareDeliriumDocumentationGermanyGuidelines as TopicHealth Care SurveysHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProcedural SedationCAM-ICUCritical careDeliriumGuidelinesSurvey

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.