ArticleAustralasian journal on ageing2026
Detected Delirium Prevalence and Practices in Australia and New Zealand: A Sub-Analysis of the World Delirium Awareness Day Prevalence Study.
Article in Australasian journal on ageing, 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe detected delirium prevalence and current delirium-related practices in Australian and New Zealand healthcare sites.
methodsThis study was a sub-analysis of Australian and New Zealand data from an international cross-sectional survey conducted on World Delirium Awareness Day 2023. Delirium was identified using existing clinical practices on participating wards.
resultsAcross 257 wards of varying specialties and acuities, detected delirium prevalence was 16% (n = 637/4033) at 8:00 AM and 16% (n = 609/3836) at 8:00 PM. Delirium assessment rates were 63% (n = 4033/6369) at 8:00 AM and 63% (n = 3836/6091) at 8:00 PM. Most wards (93%) used validated assessment tools, most commonly 4AT and CAM. Just over half (53%) assessed for delirium at least daily, whereas 37% only assessed in response to the sudden changes in consciousness or clinical condition. Written delirium protocols were common (91%). Non-pharmacological strategies were widely implemented, particularly ensuring adequate fluids (87%), mobilisation (84%) and pain management (84%). Frequent use of pharmacological interventions was often reported, particularly antipsychotics, including risperidone (36%), haloperidol (35%) and quetiapine (31%). Key perceived barriers to implementation of evidence-based delirium care were staff shortage (70%), lack of time to educate and train staff (53%) and missing knowledge (49%).
conclusionsIn Australia and New Zealand, delirium assessment practices have improved over time. Non-pharmacological strategies are widely used; however, antipsychotic use remains substantial. Workforce constraints, education gaps and system pressures may contribute to variability in delirium care delivery. Addressing these factors, alongside engagement with carers, may support further improvements in care. Ongoing surveillance through repeated surveys would help monitor trends in delirium care over time.
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.