ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Targeted Delirium Screening in At-risk Older Adults in the Emergency Department Improves Screening Rates.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Delirium is prevalent yet underrecognized in the emergency department (ED). Timely identification of delirium is a priority, but results from systematic implementation of targeted delirium screening in the ED are limited. Methods: This study analyzes delirium screening rates, positivity rates, and distribution of screening scores before and after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based risk stratification at ED triage. In the baseline period, delirium screening was based on age (65+ years) and clinical concern for altered mental status (AMS). In the intervention period, eligibility for delirium screening was based on an automated EMR-based risk stratification. The 4AT was used as a delirium screening tool in both periods. Results: In the baseline period, only 3267 (3.0%) of patient encounters were noted to have AMS and were eligible for delirium screening; 2241 patients received the screening; 1901 screenings resulted in a positive 4AT. In the intervention period using EMR-based targeted screening, 39,065 encounters were eligible for delirium screening; 14,125 patients received the screening, resulting in 2016 positive 4AT. Conclusion: This multicenter study demonstrates the feasibility of EMR-based risk stratification to target encounters for delirium screening at ED triage. The clinical judgment approach resulted in lower screening rates and a greater percentage of high-positive 4AT scores. The risk-stratified approach resulted in a 6-fold increase in number of screenings and identification of low-positive 4AT scores, detecting more patients with subtle delirium. An approach that leverages risk-stratified screening, complemented by screening based on clinical judgment, could capture a wider range of patients with delirium.
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.