ArticleNursing in critical care2025
National screening for delirium in paediatric intensive care units: A quality improvement initiative.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Challenges of Diagnosing, Managing, and Preventing Pediatric Delirium.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- National screening for delirium in paediatric intensive care units: A quality improvement initiative.Nursing in critical care · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternationally, one in three children develop delirium during their intensive care stay. International guidelines strongly recommend twice-daily screening for paediatric delirium using validated instruments. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, delirium was assessed only when suspected and few intensive care units (ICUs) used validated instruments.
aimThis initiative aimed to implement a national screening strategy in 28 paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) across the United Kingdom and Ireland. STUDY
designThe strategy involved: (a) rapidly reviewing, evaluating and ranking paediatric screening instruments for sensitivity, specificity, appropriateness and acceptability for national implementation; (b) achieving national agreement to implement a common tool; (c) creating and disseminating training materials while supporting training personnel in implementation; and (d) integrating delirium monitoring within the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network national database.
resultsAmong seven validated instruments, the top ranked options (from 1, most applicable to 7, least applicable) were the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (average rank 1.25) and the Sophia Observation withdrawal Symptoms-Paediatric Delirium scale (1.5). Twenty-three units voted for their preferred choice of instrument: fifteen preferred the Cornell instrument, eight favoured the Sophia instrument and five did not respond. Training and implementation began in November 2021 and by March 2023 18 of the 28 units (64%) had successfully implemented screening. The national database began actively collecting delirium data from units in January 2024.
conclusionsThis initiative outlined critical steps for implementing and maintaining practice of delirium screening in PICUs. We provided clinicians with validated screening tools for detecting paediatric delirium and the necessary support and infrastructure to maintain screening. Embedding and sustaining screening is an ongoing challenge. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Undertaking routine screening for all intensive care patients from admission to discharge using validated instruments will provide earlier detection and treatment for critically ill children. This strategy offers a model for standardized and effective implementation in clinical practice in ICUs.
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.