Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada.
BMC Geriatr. 2021 May 12;21(1):307. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02245-3.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends documenting all delirium episodes in the discharge summary using the term "delirium". Previous studies demonstrate poor delirium documentation rates in discharge summaries and no studies have assessed delirium documentation quality. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and quality of delirium documentation in discharge summaries and explore differences between medical and surgical services.
This was a multi-center retrospective chart review. We included 110 patients aged ≥ 65 years identified to have delirium during their hospitalization using the Chart-based Delirium Identification Instrument (CHART-DEL). We assessed the frequency of any delirium documentation in discharge summaries, and more specifically, for the term "delirium". We evaluated the quality of delirium discharge documentation using the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization's framework for quality discharge summaries. Comparisons were made between medical and surgical services. Secondary outcomes included assessing factors influencing the frequency of "delirium" being documented in the discharge summary.
We identified 110 patients with sufficient chart documentation to identify delirium and 80.9 % of patients had delirium documented in their discharge summary ("delirium" or other acceptable term). The specific term "delirium" was reported in 63.6 % of all delirious patients and more often by surgical than medical specialties (76.5 % vs. 52.5 %, p = 0.02). Documentation quality was significantly lower by surgical specialties in reporting delirium as a diagnosis (23.5 % vs. 57.6 %, p < 0.001), documenting delirium workup (23.4 % vs. 57.6 %, p = 0.001), etiology (43.3 % vs. 70.4 %, p = 0.03), treatment (36.7 % vs. 66.7 %, p = 0.02), medication changes (44.4 % vs. 100 %, p = 0.002) and follow-up (36.4 % vs. 88.2 %, p = 0.01).
The frequency of delirium documentation is higher than previously reported but remains subpar. Medical services document delirium with higher quality, but surgical specialties document the term "delirium" more frequently. The documentation of delirium in discharge summaries must improve to meet quality standards.
英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所建议在出院小结中使用“delirium”一词记录所有谵妄发作。先前的研究表明出院小结中谵妄记录率较差,且尚无研究评估谵妄记录质量。本研究旨在确定出院小结中谵妄记录的频率和质量,并探讨医疗和外科服务之间的差异。
这是一项多中心回顾性病历审查。我们纳入了 110 名年龄≥65 岁的患者,他们在住院期间使用 Chart-based Delirium Identification Instrument(CHART-DEL)被确定为谵妄。我们评估了出院小结中任何谵妄记录的频率,特别是记录“delirium”一词的频率。我们使用联合委员会认证的医疗保健组织(JCAHO)质量出院小结框架评估了谵妄出院记录的质量。比较了医疗和外科服务之间的差异。次要结局包括评估影响“delirium”在出院小结中记录频率的因素。
我们确定了 110 名有足够图表记录可识别谵妄的患者,其中 80.9%的患者在出院小结中记录了谵妄(“delirium”或其他可接受的术语)。在所有谵妄患者中,有 63.6%的患者报告了特定术语“delirium”,外科专业报告的比例高于内科专业(76.5%比 52.5%,p=0.02)。外科专业在报告谵妄为诊断(23.5%比 57.6%,p<0.001)、记录谵妄检查(23.4%比 57.6%,p=0.001)、病因(43.3%比 70.4%,p=0.03)、治疗(36.7%比 66.7%,p=0.02)、药物改变(44.4%比 100%,p=0.002)和随访(36.4%比 88.2%,p=0.01)方面的质量明显较低。
谵妄记录的频率高于先前报道,但仍不理想。医疗服务记录谵妄的质量更高,但外科专业记录“delirium”的频率更高。为了达到质量标准,出院小结中谵妄的记录必须改进。