Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37386400›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Barriers to delirium screening and management during hospital admission: a qualitative analysis of inpatient nursing perspectives.

Jacqueline Ragheb, Alexandra Norcott, Lakeshia Benn, Nirav Shah, Amy McKinney, Lillian Min, Phillip E Vlisides

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Risk factors and risk stratification approaches for delirium screening: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 systematic review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

7 authors.

Jacqueline RaghebDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1H247 UH, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, SPC-5048, 48109-5048, USA.
Alexandra NorcottDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric & Palliative Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lakeshia BennDepartment of Inpatient Rehabilitation, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Nirav ShahDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1H247 UH, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, SPC-5048, 48109-5048, USA.
Amy McKinneyDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1H247 UH, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, SPC-5048, 48109-5048, USA.
Lillian MinDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric & Palliative Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Phillip E VlisidesDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1H247 UH, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, SPC-5048, 48109-5048, USA. pvliside@med.umich.edu.

Funding

Caffeine and Postoperative Neurocognitive RecoveryR01AG075005 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Phillip Eleas Vlisides · 2022 to 2026
$2.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG075005NIA NIH HHS R01AG075005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium in hospitalized patients is a major public health issue, yet delirium is often unrecognized and missed during inpatient admission. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to delirium screening, identification, and management from a nursing perspective on inpatient, acute care units.

methodsThis was a pre-implementation, diagnostic evaluation study to determine current practice patterns and potential barriers to optimizing delirium care at a major university hospital. A qualitative approach was used, which included focus groups of inpatient nurses working on major medical and surgical acute care units. Focus groups were conducted until signs of thematic saturation were present, and data were analyzed via inductive thematic analysis, without predetermined theories or structures. A consensus approach was utilized for transcript coding, and final themes were generated after multiple reviews of initial themes against transcript datasets.

resultsFocus group sessions (n = 3) were held with 18 nurses across two major inpatient units. Nurses reported several barriers to successful delirium screening and management. Specific challenges included difficulty with using delirium screening tools, an organizational culture not conducive to delirium prevention, and competing clinical priorities. Proposed solutions were also discussed, including decision-support systems with automated pager alerts and associated delirium order sets, which may help improve delirium care coordination and standardization.

conclusionAt a major university hospital, nurses affirm the difficulty experienced with delirium screening and identification, particularly due to screening tool challenges, cultural barriers, and clinical workload. These impediments may serve as targets for a future implementation trial to improve delirium screening and management.

Indexed as

DeliriumInpatientsConsensusCritical CareHospitals, UniversityHumansDecision support (clinical)Evaluation methodologyImplementation scienceQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID37386400
PMCPMC10311863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.