ArticleAge and ageing2022
Improving delirium screening and recognition in UK hospitals: results of a multi-centre quality improvement project.
Article in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Pleasantly confused" and missed opportunities for delirium recognition: A hospital record audit.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Review
- Geriatric critical care assessment: key considerations.European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Barriers to nurse-led delirium management in intensive care units: an integrative systematic review using COM-B model.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgrounddelirium is an acute severe neuropsychiatric condition associated with adverse outcomes, particularly in older adults. However, it is frequently under-recognised.
methodsthis multi-centre quality improvement project utilised a collaborative approach to implementation of changes at sites, with the aim to improve delirium screening, recognition and documentation on discharge summaries. Resources, including delirium guidelines and presentations, were shared between sites, and broad details of local interventions were collected. Three timepoints of data collection (14 March 2018, 14 September 2018 and 13 March 2019) were conducted to assess screening, recognition and documentation of delirium in unscheduled admissions of adults aged ≥65 years old. The impact of local interventions and site-specific factors was assessed using logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient factors.
resultsa total of 3,013 patients (mean age 80.2, 53.8% females) were recruited across the three timepoints. Screening for delirium was associated with increased odds of recognition (aOR 4.75, CI 2.98-7.56; P < 0.001); this was not affected by grade/profession of screener. Rates of screening, recognition and discharge documentation improved across the three timepoints of data collection. The presence of a local delirium specialist team was associated with increased rates of screening for delirium (aOR 1.75, CI 1.41-2.18; P < 0.001), and the presence of a geriatric medicine team embedded into the admissions unit was associated with increased recognition rates (aOR 1.78, CI 1.09-2.92; P = 0.022).
conclusiondelirium screening is associated with improved recognition. Interventions that strive to improve screening within a culture of delirium awareness are encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.