Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38952186›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2024

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols.

Peter Nydahl, Keibun Liu, Giuseppe Bellelli, Julie Benbenishty, Mark van den Boogaard, Gideon Caplan, Chi Ryang Chung, Muhammed Elhadi, Mohan Gurjar, Gabi Heras-La Calle and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Peter NydahlNursing Research, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5178-0364
Keibun LiuCritical Care Research Group, The Prince Charles Hospital, 627 Rode Rd, Chermside QLD 4032, Australia.
Giuseppe BellelliSchool of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano, Italy.
Julie BenbenishtyHebrew University Faculty of Medicine School of Nursing, PO Box 12272, Jerusalem 91120, Israel.
Mark van den BoogaardDepartment Intensive Care, Radboud University Medical Center, 10 Geert Grooteplein Zuid, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gideon CaplanDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney, 320-346 Barker St, Randwick NSW 2031, Sydney, Australia.
Chi Ryang ChungDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu. Seoul, Korea 06351, South Korea.
Muhammed ElhadiFaculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, University Road, Al-Furnaje Tripoli, PO Box 13932, Tripoli, Libya.
Mohan GurjarDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow-226014, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Gabi Heras-La CalleDirector of the International Research Project for the Humanization of Intensive Care Units (Proyecto HU-CI), Madrid, Spain.
Magdalena HoffmannResearch Unit for Safety and Sustainability in Healthcare, c/o Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Marie-Madlen JeitzinerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, Freiburgstrasse 18, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Karla KrewulakDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services and University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Tanya MailhotMontreal Heart Institute Research Center, Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, 680 Sherbrooke West, Montreal QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Alessandro MorandiIntermediate Care and Rehabilitation, Azienda Speciale Cremona Solidale, Via Brescia 207, 26100 Cremona, Italy.
Ricardo Kenji NawaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av. Albert Einstein, 627, São Paulo, SP 05652-900, Brazil.
Esther S OhDepartments of Medicine, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 733 N. Broadway, MD 21205 Baltimore, ML, USA.
Marie O ColletDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, and Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maria Carolina PaulinoDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, 1150-082 Lisbon, Portugal.
Heidi LindrothDivision of Nursing Research, Department of Nursing, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Rebecca von HakenDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
WDAD Study Group

Funding

Harnessing the Power of Technology to Transform Delirium Severity Measurement in the ICUK23AG076662 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Heidi Lindroth · 2022 to 2026
$815k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG076662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

objectiveTo assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols.

designSecondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023.

settingCross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

methodsParticipating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers.

resultsData from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions.

conclusionWards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Indexed as

DeliriumAgedClinical ProtocolsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeriatric AssessmentGlobal HealthHumansMalePrevalenceassessmentsdeliriumencephalopathyolder peoplepatient safetyprotocolsquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID38952186
PMCPMC13366275

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.