ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
"Pleasantly confused" and missed opportunities for delirium recognition: A hospital record audit.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delirium is a serious hospital complication with long-lasting and life-threatening consequences and high healthcare costs. Despite decades of evidence, tools, and guidelines, delirium remains under-recognised and under-treated. Objective: To examine alignment between policy and practice for delirium risk identification, screening, and assessment and to identify the language used in documentation to describe cognitive observations and delirium. Design: A retrospective, cross-sectional clinical documentation audit using a single-day point prevalence study design. Settings: A tertiary metropolitan hospital in southeastern Australia where the clinical records were audited. Participants: A midnight census conducted in July 2021 identified 807 inpatient clinical records, of which 460 records met the eligibility criteria for this study. Methods: Clinical records were audited for delirium risk identification, screening, assessment, and language use in documentation referring to cognition. Descriptive analyses were used. Results: Among the 460 included records, risk factors for delirium were identified in 316 (69%). Of these at-risk patients, only 28/316 (9%) received subsequent screening, and 12/316 (4%) had further assessment, which resulted in 3/316 (1%) having a documented diagnosis of delirium. We also identified 331 documented words and phrases describing cognition. Diagnostic language, such as 'delirium,' appeared in only 3% of 331 documented words and phrases. Ambiguous language and euphemisms accounted for 22% of terms and included phrases such as 'pleasantly confused,' which dismissed the seriousness and urgency of delirium. Conclusions: Despite frequent risk identification, subsequent screening, assessment, and diagnostic naming of delirium was uncommon, creating missed opportunities for recognition and escalation. Ambiguous observations and euphemisms were documented by practitioners and diagnostic language omitted, rendering delirium invisible. Possible opportunities for increasing the detection and visibility of delirium in hospital practice include: nurses using advocacy language, such as 'possible delirium' and working diagnoses when screening scores are positive; electronic medical record prompts and alerts when information thresholds are met for patients; streamlined documentation to align everyday practice with delirium care pathway steps; and education alongside a change in institutional culture where cognitive care is seen as fundamental patient care.
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.