Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care

Background 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. Objective To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery. Design Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

[1]  G. Caplan,et al.  Persistent delirium in older hospital patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis , 2022, medRxiv.

[2]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) , 2021, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  J. Claassen,et al.  Updated nomenclature of delirium and acute encephalopathy: statement of ten Societies , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[4]  A. MacLullich,et al.  Delirium detection in older acute medical inpatients: a multicentre prospective comparative diagnostic test accuracy study of the 4AT and the confusion assessment method , 2019, BMC medicine.

[5]  Y. Skrobik,et al.  Delirium assessment in neuro‐critically ill patients: A validation study , 2018, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[6]  A. Ciampi,et al.  Partial and no recovery from delirium after hospital discharge predict increased adverse events , 2016, Age and ageing.

[7]  A. MacLullich,et al.  Increasing delirium skills at the front door: results from a repeated survey on delirium knowledge and attitudes. , 2016, Age and ageing.

[8]  J. Desrosiers,et al.  Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study , 2015, BMC Nursing.

[9]  D. Meagher,et al.  Defining 'recovery' for delirium research: a systematic review. , 2015, Age and ageing.

[10]  A. MacLullich,et al.  Consensus and variations in opinions on delirium care: a survey of European delirium specialists , 2013, International Psychogeriatrics.

[11]  V. Preedy,et al.  Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network , 2010 .

[12]  G. Bernard,et al.  Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). , 2001, JAMA.

[13]  S K Inouye,et al.  Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.