4.6 Article

Delirium: A Survey of Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 64, 期 12, 页码 E297-E303

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14544

关键词

delirium; training; screening; diagnosis; barriers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding delirium of physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and registered nurses (RNs). DESIGN: Anonymous cross-sectional paper survey. SETTING: New York metropolitan area tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: RNs, NPs, and physicians (N=164). MEASUREMENTS: The survey assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding delirium and prior delirium or geriatric training. RESULTS: Of the 200 surveys distributed, 164 were completed (82% response rate). Of these, 61.7% were RNs, 13.6% were NPs, and 20.7% were physicians. Mean participant age was 36.3. The majority (80.1%) were female; 56.5% were white, 18.1% Asian, 8.7% Hispanic, 8.0% black, and 8.7% other. Of the seven potential barriers to delirium screening assessed, the three most frequently reported were lack of conceptual understanding of delirium (48.0%), similarity of delirium and dementia (41.4%), and the fluctuating nature of delirium (38.1%). Physicians were more likely than NPs and RNs to report being confident in identifying delirium (P=.002) and to score higher on the delirium knowledge assessment (P<.001). Participants who received geriatrics training were significantly more likely than those who did not to be confident in identifying delirium (P=.005) and to score higher on overall delirium knowledge assessment (P=.003). CONCLUSION: Geriatric training is associated with more confidence in delirium screening and higher delirium knowledge scores. There is an urgent need to broaden the approach to delirium education of nurses and physicians caring for hospitalized older adults using comprehensive multidisciplinary geriatric educational models.

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

4.6
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