ArticleBMC health services research2025
Delirium screening and alerting systems for older hospital inpatients.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
- Early recognition of delirium in hospitalized patients: an underutilized clinical priority.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Nurses' Compliance with Delirium Assessment Protocol in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Delirium prevalence, diagnostic uncertainty and outcomes in ORCHARD-EPR: validation against prospective reference cohorts.Age and ageing · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelirium often goes unrecognized in the hospital, leading to missed opportunities for management. The objective of this study was to test a multicomponent program for delirium screening and reporting for older, hospitalized adults.
methodsWe implemented a multicomponent delirium screening and alerting program within two university hospital units for all patients ≥ 70 years of age. The initiative compared performance of the 4 'A's Test, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, and Confusion Assessment Method. Additionally, the study team provided recurrent educational sessions with nurses and implemented pager and electronic health record alerts for patients who screened positive for delirium. Nurses were then surveyed about their perspectives, and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the medical record.
resultsCompared to the Confusion Assessment Method, the proportion of positive screens was significantly higher (positive screens/admissions) with the 4 'A's Test (49/448, 11% vs. 12/399, 3%, p < 0.001) and the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (83/539, 15% vs. 12/399, 3%, p < 0.001). Among surveyed nurses, 32/41 (78%) expressed that the alerting system provided at least "moderate" motivation to screen for delirium, and 35/41 (85%) voiced that it provided at least "moderate" motivation to record positive screens. Most respondents (23/42, 55%) reported recurrent educational sessions as "very helpful." Positive screens were associated with higher mortality (6.6% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.003), longer hospitalizations (13 [± 11] days vs. 7 [± 11], p < 0.001), and higher likelihood of discharge to care facilities (45% vs. 23%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPositive delirium screening rates were higher with the 4AT and NuDesc compared to the CAM. Additionally, alerting systems and educational initiatives served as motivating factors for delirium screening and charting.
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.