Noble Erin, McCartney Haruno, MacLullich Alasdair M, Shenkin Susan D, Muniz-Terrera Graciela, Evans Jonathan J, Davis Daniel, Sandeman Daisy, Tieges Zoë
Delirium Commun. 2022 Dec 19;1:56675. doi: 10.56392/001c.56675.
A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.
To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.
Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.
The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery.
Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery.
The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.
谵妄护理的一个关键部分是确定谵妄发作是否已经缓解。然而,对于临床医生应使用哪些评估方法来评估谵妄恢复情况,尚无明确的证据或共识。
评估谵妄专家对谵妄恢复评估的当前观点。
基于在线问卷的调查,在国际范围内分发给参与谵妄护理的医疗保健专业人员。
该调查涵盖了评估恢复的方法、不同症状领域对捕捉恢复的重要性,以及推荐监测谵妄恢复情况的当地指南或路径。
收集了199名临床医生的回复。受访者来自英国(51%)、美国(13%)、澳大利亚(9%)、加拿大(7%)、爱尔兰(7%)以及其他16个国家。大多数受访者是医生(52%)和护士(27%)。临床医生大多在老年医学科室(52%)、重症监护病房(21%)和急性评估单元(17%)工作。94%的受访者表示他们会进行重复的谵妄评估(即≥2次)以监测谵妄恢复情况。对于捕捉恢复情况被认为最重要的症状领域是:觉醒(92%)、注意力不集中(84%)运动障碍(84%)以及幻觉和妄想(83%)。评估恢复情况最常用的工具是4项“ A”测试(4AT,51%),其次是谵妄评定方法(CAM,26%)、重症监护病房谵妄评定方法(CAM-ICU,17%)和谵妄单问题筛查(SQiD,11%)。28%的人仅使用临床特征。不到一半(45%)的临床医生报告有推荐监测谵妄恢复情况的当地指南。
调查结果表明,尽管对于捕捉谵妄恢复的关键领域存在共识,但用于重复谵妄评估的工具和方法缺乏标准化。这些发现强调需要进一步研究以确立评估谵妄恢复的最佳实践。