4.5 Review

Screening for Delirium in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 551-560

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.11.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Indiana University Center for Aging Research
  2. Regenstrief Institute, Inc.
  3. Indiana University Department of Emergency Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Older adults who visit emergency departments (EDs) often experience delirium, but it is infrequently recognized. A systematic review was therefore conducted to identify what delirium screening tools have been used in ED-based epidemiologic studies of delirium, whether there is a validated set of screening instruments to identify delirium among older adults in the ED or prehospital environments, and an ideal schedule during an older adult's visit to perform a delirium evaluation. MEDLINE/EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through February 2013 for original, English-language research articles reporting on the assessment of older adults' mental status for delirium. Twenty-two articles met all study inclusion criteria. Overall, 7 screening instruments were identified, though only 1 has undergone initial validation for use in the ED environment and a second instrument is currently undergoing such validation. Minimal information was identified to suggest the ideal scheduling of a delirium assessment process to maximize the recognition of this condition in the ED. Study results indicate that several delirium screening tools have been used in investigations in the ED, though validation of these instruments for this particular environment has been minimal to date. The ideal interval(s) during which a delirium screening process should take place has yet to be determined. Research will be needed both to validate delirium screening instruments to be used for investigation and clinical care in the ED and to define the ideal timing and form of the delirium assessment process for older adults.

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

4.5
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