4.6 Article

Rates of Delirium Diagnosis Do Not Improve with Emergency Risk Screening: Results of the Emergency Department Delirium Initiative Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 1810-1815

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14904

关键词

delirium; screening; emergency medicine

资金

  1. Western Australian State Health Research Advisory Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo determine whether a bundled risk screening and warning or action card system improves formal delirium diagnosis and person-centered outcomes in hospitalized older adults. DesignProspective trial with sequential introduction of screening and interventional processes. SettingTwo tertiary referral hospitals in Australia. ParticipantsIndividuals aged 65 and older presenting to the emergency department (ED) and not requiring immediate resuscitation (N = 3,905). InterventionFormal ED delirium screening algorithm and use of a risk warning card with a recommended series of actions for the prevention and management of delirium during the subsequent admission MeasurementsDelirium diagnosis at hospital discharge, proportion discharged to new assisted living arrangements, in-hospital complications (use of sedation, falls, aspiration pneumonia, death), hospital length of stay. ResultsParticipants with a positive risk screen were significantly more likely (relative risk = 6.0, 95% confidence interval = 4.9-7.3) to develop delirium, and the proportion of at-risk participants with a positive screen was constant across three study phases. Delirium detection rate in participants undergoing the final intervention (Phase 3) was 12.1% (a 2% absolute and 17% relative increase from the baseline rate) but this was not statistically significant (P = .29), and a similar relative increase was seen over time in participants not receiving the intervention ConclusionA risk screening and warning or action card intervention in the ED did not significantly improve rates of delirium detection or other important outcomes.

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