ArticleAge and ageing2024
Benefits of an automated postoperative delirium risk prediction tool combined with non-pharmacological delirium prevention on delirium incidence and length of stay: a before-after analysis based on a quality improvement project.
Article in Age and ageing, 2024. 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.
- Retrospective external validation of the Mayo Delirium Prediction tool in a Swiss cohort of medical and surgical inpatients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Point-of-care electroencephalography for prediction of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing elective surgery: protocol for a prospective cohort study.Biology methods & protocols · 2026Review
- Prospective external validation of the automated PIPRA multivariable prediction model for postoperative delirium on real-world data from a consecutive cohort of non-cardiac surgery inpatients.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Comment on Zaher-Sánchez et al. The Management and Prevention of Delirium in Elderly Patients Hospitalised in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative delirium (POD) significantly impacts older surgical patients, necessitating effective prevention strategies.
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the Pre-Interventional Preventive Risk Assessment (PIPRA) automated delirium risk prediction tool alongside non-pharmacological prevention strategies on POD incidence, hospital length of stay (LOS) and nursing time.
methodsThis quality improvement project, set in a 335-bed Swiss private hospital, employed a before-after design to evaluate the impact of PIPRA and preventive measures on POD, LOS and nursing time in non-cardiac and non-intracranial surgery inpatients aged 60 or older. The control phase focused on enhancing POD screening, whilst the intervention phase incorporated PIPRA for risk assessment and staff training to enable targeted non-pharmacological prevention in patients at risk.
resultsA total of 866 patients were included; 299 control and 567 intervention. The odds ratio of POD, comparing the intervention group to the control, was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.16] when adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. The intervention was associated with an LOS 0.94 (95% CI 0.85-1.05) and nursing time 0.96 (95% CI 0.86-1.07) times that of the control, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics. Medium risk patients (21.6% of patients) had an LOS 0.74 (95% CI 0.59-0.92) and required nursing time 0.79 (95% CI from 0.62-1.00) times the control, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, equivalent to an LOS reduction of 1.36 days and nursing time saving of 19.3 hours per patient.
conclusionsMedium risk patients in the intervention group had shorter LOS and nursing time compared to the control group, underscoring the importance of targeted prevention.
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.