4.7 Article

Increasing delirium skills at the front door: results from a repeated survey on delirium knowledge and attitudes

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 517-522

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afw066

关键词

delirium; education; survey; questionnaire; older people

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [WT090661/Z/09/Z]
  2. MRC [MC_UU_12019/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K026992/1, MC_UU_12019/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: delirium is under-recognised in comparison to other common and serious acute disorders. A 2006 survey of UK junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) identified poor knowledge of the diagnostic criteria and treatment of delirium. We hypothesised that increased prominence accorded to delirium in the form of national initiatives and guidelines may have had an impact on understanding among junior doctors. Objective: we repeated a multi-centre survey of knowledge of and attitudes to delirium in junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) assessing unselected acute medical presentations (the 'medical take'). Design: questionnaire-based survey in 48 acute hospitals in UK and Ireland. Methods: we used questionnaires designed to test understanding of delirium, including prevalence, knowledge of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, use of specific screening tools, association with adverse outcomes and pharmacological management. Results: one thousand two hundred and fifteen trainee physicians participated. Compared with the 2006 cohort, improvements were seen in 9 of 17 knowledge-based questions and overall score improved in the 2013 cohort. Nonetheless, significant deficits in knowledge, particularly for the diagnostic criteria for delirium, remained. Conclusions: despite improvements in some aspects of delirium knowledge, the diagnostic criteria for delirium remain poorly understood. Challenges remain in ensuring adequate training for junior doctors in delirium.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据