4.7 Article

Specialty experience in geriatric medicine is associated with a small increase in knowledge of delirium

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 141-144

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/aft159

关键词

delirium; survey; geriatric; doctor; specialty; older people

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/K026992/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: delirium is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Understanding of delirium among doctors in medical and ICU settings has previously been shown to be low. We hypothesised that junior doctors who had gained experience in geriatrics, neurology or psychiatry may have an increased knowledge of delirium. Methods: we used data from a large multi-centre study of junior doctors conducted between December 2006 and January 2007 which is, to date, the largest survey of understanding of delirium among junior doctors. The original survey used a questionnaire within which certain key items led to a correct or incorrect answer. Total correct answers were recorded giving a maximum total knowledge score of 17 for each participant. The relationship between total knowledge score achieved on the questionnaire and time since qualification; specialty experience in geriatric medicine, psychiatry and/or neurology and self-reported experience with the Confusion Assessment Method (independent variables) were modelled using linear regression. Results: around half (53.2%; 399 of 750) of those surveyed stated that they had experience in geriatric medicine. In contrast only 4.1 and 8.0% of respondents had experience in psychiatry and neurology, respectively. Experience in geriatric medicine was significantly associated with a modest increase in correct answers (4.7 versus 4.3 points, P = 0.020). No other variables were significantly associated with better scores. Conclusion: experience in geriatric medicine leads to a small improvement in understanding of delirium among junior doctors.

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