Efficacy of Liaison Education and Environmental Changes on Delirium Incidence in ICU

AUTHORS

Mohammad Arbabi 1 , 2 , Jayran Zebardast 3 , Ahmad Ali Noorbala 2 , Mostafa Mohamadi 4 , Mohsen Rahimnia 1 , * , Roja Larijani 5

1 Department of Psychiatry, Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Psychosomatic Ward, Imam Khomeini Hospital Tehran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Virtual School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Intensive Care Unit, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Department of Psychology, Tarbiat Moalem University, Tehran, Iran

How to Cite: Arbabi M, Zebardast J, Noorbala A A, Mohamadi M, Rahimnia M, et al. Efficacy of Liaison Education and Environmental Changes on Delirium Incidence in ICU, Arch Neurosci. 2018 ; 5(2):e56019. doi: 10.5812/archneurosci.56019.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Archives of Neuroscience: 5 (2); e56019
Published Online: April 20, 2018
Article Type: Research Article
Received: June 23, 2017
Accepted: January 6, 2018
Crossmark

Crossmark

CHEKING

READ FULL TEXT
Abstract

Background: Delirium is a disorder with disturbance of consciousness, cognitive process. The present study’s aim is to evaluate the efficacy of liaison educational and environmental changes on the delirium rate in ICU patients.

Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study on 148 admitted patients (over 18 years of age) in the general ICU. A total of 69 patients in the group before implementing multidisciplinary interventions and 79 patients in the group after multidisciplinary interventions were evaluated. In the case and control group RASS level of consciousness were measured. Scale ICU- CAM (at morning and evening) is used to check the incidence of delirium in the ICU patient. In addition, the demographic questionnaire has been used and delirium duration and the length of hospitalization are also evaluated in both groups. Multifactorial interventions are included as staff physicians and nurses training through a workshop. It should be noted that a 3-hour workshop is used for training of all staff personnel in the ICU ward. The 2nd part is creating environmental intervention in the ICU to decrease delirium in admitted patients.

Results: In this study, 148 patients were studied, 69 patients in the group before implementing multidisciplinary interventions and 79 patients in the group after multidisciplinary interventions were evaluated. Incidence of delirium was 30 (37.97) in intervention and in 50 (72.46) control group (P = 0.01). The mean percent day in ICU patients with delirium was 26.18 ± 35.38 at intervention group and 35.84 ± 39.31 in the control group (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: We found that delirium can be reduced by some intervention, and also medical team orientation about delirium can be help to reduced the incidence; therefore, it is recommended that this factor be evaluated in future study.

Keywords

Early Detection Delirium Screening ICU

Copyright © 2018, Archives of Neuroscience. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited

1. Background

Delirium is a disorder with disturbance of consciousness, a cognitive process that often happens suddenly and is associated with impaired orientation, short-term memory, changes in sensory perception (delusions), abnormal thinking, and inappropriate behavior. Increase in mortality, institutionalization, and length of hospitalization, physical morbidity, and costs for healthcare providers associated with delirium (1-3). Delirium is a common complication in hospitalized patients in the intensive unit and its incidence in patients with critical diseases is more than 80% (an overview of different studies), therefore, the incidence of delirium depends on the severity of causes of hospitalization scale used (1, 4, 5).

Today, particular attention is paid to the prevention, treatment, and identification of the risk factors that help early prevention of delirium in order to reduce its risk factors (environmental interventions) and secondary prevention, which helps the early detection of delirium. On the other hand, early diagnosis of delirium needs the training of personnel (increasing their knowledge). It is recommended to screen patients’ and careers’ perspectives, and to reduce hospital costs, which can change the levels of prevention of delirium. Since the special nurses are frequently in a relationship with the patients, they play a key role in prevention, early detection, and treatment of patients with delirium (6-10). Although, the use of standard screening delirium patients in intensive care unit is not still common by physicians and nurses, it is necessary to screen delirium (3, 11-13). Therefore, the present study intends to early detect delirium screening in ICU.

2. Methods

This is a quasi-experimental study on the admitted patients (over 18 years old) in General ICU. All patients or the patient’s relatives signed the informed consent. All patients did not have the background of cognitive disorders such as dementia, no alcohol abuse, no impaired consciousness, no history of psychiatric drugs, and they did not interrupt the admission drug use.

In the intervention group, multifactorial intervention had been done on environmental conditions as well as physicians and nurses of general ICU ward; and in the control group, none of the patients had experienced any change in the ICU ward.

Multifactorial intervention included: staff nurses training and physician training through the workshop (about delirium importance, early and clinically identification of delirium by instruments like CAM-ICU, etiology and prevention methods, pharmacological treatment of delirium and non-pharmacologic intervention). It should be noted that a 3-hour workshop was used for training of all personnel in ICU ward.

The 2nd part intervention included creating environmental intervention in the ICU such as installing a clock and calendar (in order for the patient to see them), allowing the patient to meet his/her family members, using appropriate lighting in day and night, providing eyeglasses and hearing aids for the patient, using light alarms instead of audio alarms, encouraging staff to more interact with patients, encouraging patients to eat liquids for dehydration, and leaving the patient out of bed immediately, according to Yale Delirium Prevention (14).

In the intervention and control groups RASS level of consciousness was measured. Scale ICU-CAM (in the morning and evening) and also the demographic questionnaire were used to check the incidence of delirium in ICU patients. In addition, delirium duration and the length of hospitalization were evaluated in both groups. The 3rd part of intervention included the use of educational posters guidelines (about the approach of patients exposed to the risk of delirium and step by step guide management of delirium patients).

2.1. Instruments

CAM-ICU scale: The incidence of delirium was studied by a validated scale to measure, which can also be used for patients in intensive care unit, too. This scale is approved by the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, the 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) and is used for ICU patients twice a day (morning and evening from the day before surgery to hospital discharge). Four main features of delirium are included in this scale: sudden acute onset delirium, lack of concentration and attention, alteration of consciousness and unorganized thinking, which all had been checked; therefore, delirious patients had a positive CAM-ICU result. The website www.icudelirium is currently available for a manual of the CAM-ICU (1, 15).

RASS scale: Scale RASS is used to determine a patient’s agitation or sedation level of consciousness. Score and classification for RASS scale include: combative (4), very agitated (3), agitated (2), restless (1), alert and calm (0), drowsy (-1), light sedation (-2), moderate sedation (-3), eeep sedation (-4), and unarguable (-5) (16). All data has been analyzed by SPSS v. 19. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant.

3. Results

In this study, 148 patients were studied, 69 patients in the group before implementing multidisciplinary interventions and 79 patients in the group after multidisciplinary interventions were evaluated. To simplify the presentation of the results, the 1st group (pre-intervention) is called “control” and after intervention group is called the “intervention group”.

According to result, all demographic information such as age, sex, location, treatment, medical services, length of staying in ICU, education, opium abuse, other drug abuse, alcohol consumption and smoking, history of mental disease, and previous history of hospitalization did not show any significant difference between the 2 groups.

According to our study, test results showed that the mean age and frequency of sex in 2 groups was not statistical. Most patients were located in the same city in both groups, (50.9 %) in the intervention and (49.1%) in the control group. Most of the subjects were under the follow up of surgery; that is to say that, (47.9%) in intervention group and (59.3%) in the control group. Most of the subjects in the control group (48.8%) and (51.2%) in the intervention group were alliterated. Most of the subjects in control group (58.3%) and in the intervention group (41.7%) were smokers. A total of 50% in the control group and 50% in the intervention group had a history of mental disease.

A total of 50.9% in the control group and 49.1% in the intervention group had a previous history of hospitalization. All demographic information has been demonstrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Parameters in Both Groupsa
Demographic ParametersGroupP Value
InterventionControl
Age0.217
< 3517 (56.7)13 (43.3)
55 - 3517 (37.0)29 (63.0)
55 >35 (48.6)37 (51.4)
Average age55.6 ± 14.556.3 ± 13.80.321
Sex0.744
Male46 (47.7)42 (52.3)
Female33 (45.0)27 (55.0)
Location0.675
Tehran26 (49.1)27 (50.9)
Other cities43 (54.7)52 (45.3)
Treatment medical services0.698
Internal11 (40.7)16 (59.3)
Surgery58 (47.9)63 (52.1)
Length of staying In ICU4.18 ± 3.674.56 ± 3.370.334
Education0.202
Illiterate43 (51.2)41 (48.8)
Literate26 (40.6)38 (59.4)
Smoking0.659
Yes10 (12.7)14 (20.3)
No69 (87.3)65 (79.7)
History of mental illness0.520
Yes6 (7.6)6 (8.7)
No73 (92.4)63 (91.3)
Previous history of hospitalization0.110
Yes57 (72.15)56 (81.16)
No22 (27.85)13 (18.84)
Previous dementia0.893
Yes5 (6.3)4 (5.8)
No74 (93.7)65 (94.2)
Alcohol consumption0.838
Yes4 (5.1)3 (4.3)
No75 (94.9)66 (95.7)
Opium abuse0.505
Yes4 (5.1)2 (2.9)
No75 (94.9)67 (97.1)
Other drug consumptions0.641
Yes3 (3.80)1 (1.45)
No76 (96.20)68 (98.55)
Incidence of delirium0.016
Yes30 (37.97)50 (72.46)
No39 (49.37)29 (42.03)

aValues are expressed as No. (%).

The incidence of delirium was 30 (37.97) in the intervention group and in 50 (72.46) in the control group (P = 0.01).

According to the results, smoking, alcohol consumption, opium consumption, other drug abuse, previous psychiatric history, history of hospitalization, and the history of dementia hospitalization did not show significant difference between 2 groups. Subjects in the intervention group (5.8%) and in the control group (6.3%) had previous dementia.

A total of 4.3% of subjects in the intervention group and 5.1% in the control group used alcohol. In total, 87.8% of subjects in the intervention group and 93.3% in the control group used the other drugs, more information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographic Parameters in Both Groups with or Without Delirium
ParametersDeliriumIntervention GroupControl GroupP Value
Smoking
YesYes12 (15.0)4 (13.3)0.508
No68 (85.0)26 (86.7)
Total80 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes12 (17.6)6 (15.4)0.400
No56 (82.4)33 (84.6)
Total68 (100.0)39 (100.0)
Alcohol consumption
YesYes1 (2.0)1 (3.3)0.612
No49 (98)29 (96.7)
Total50 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes3 (10.3)2 (5.1)0.360
No26 (89.7)37 (94.9)
Total29 (100.0)39 (100.0)
Opium consumption
YesYes0 (0)0 (0)0.309
No80 (100.0)30 (100.0)
Total80 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes6 (8.8)2 (5.1)0.309
No62 (91.2)37 (94.9)
Total68 (100.0)39 (100.0)
Other drugs abuse
YesYes1 (1.27)0 (0.0)0.9
No78 (98.73)30 (100.0)
Total79 (100.0)30 (100)
NoYes3 (4.55)1 (2.63)0.9
No66 (95.65)38 (97.44)
Total69 (100.0)39 (100.0)
Previous psychiatric history
YesYes4 (8.0)3 (10.0)0.528
No46 (92.0)27 (90.0)
Total50 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes2 (6.9)3 (7.7)0.640
No27 (93.1)36 (92.3)
Total29 (100.0)39 (100.0)
History of hospitalization
YesYes37 (75.51)25 (83.33)0.414
No13 (24.49)5 (16.67)
Total50 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes20 (69.0)31 (79.5)0.400
No10 (31.0)8 (20.5)
Total29 (100.0)39 (100.0)
Previous history of dementia
YesYes5 (10.0)3 (10.0)0.9
No45 (90.0)27 (90.0)
Total50 (100.0)30 (100.0)
NoYes0 (0.0)1 (2.6)0.9
No29 (100.0)38 (97.4)
Total29 (100.0)39 (100.0)

The average percent of days with delirium and the average percent of days in the ICU in both of the groups were demonstrated in Table 3. The average percent of days of patients with delirium in ICU was 26.18 ± 35.38 at the intervention group and 35.84 ± 39.31 in the control group (P = 0.001).

Table 3. The Average Percent of Days with Delirium and the Average Percent of Days in ICU in Both Groups
VariablesMean ± SDP Value
Mean percent of days with delirium0.001
Intervention group26.18 ± 35.38
Control group35.84 ± 39.31
Total31.34 ± 37.72
Mean percent of days in ICU0.1
Intervention group5.26 ± 4.35
Control group5.76 ± 4.36

4. Discussion

Delirium etiology includes environments in hospitals and aspects of the routine care. According to various studies, enough and necessary knowledge for the delirium is more needed, because delirium is often unnoticed and unrecognized (2, 17-19).

In the article of Inouye et al., (3), some interventions are done to reduce the delirium rate in patients who were in the hospital. According to another study, (20) standardized screening tools can be used for delirium assessment.

Multi-sectoral interventions such as training of personnel reform the sector and have been recommended in the early detection of delirium (21).

On the other hand, education for screening by physicians’ team is so helpful. In the article written by Devlin and John W. it was shown that after physician education, agreement validated their judge for delirium identifying is more increased (22). In the article written by Gesin et al., (23) it is demonstrated that a multifaceted education program can affect the nurses’ knowledge and their ability for screening of delirium. In this study, training nurses, the screening of delirium is more plausible. In another study by Devlin et al., (24) by using an educational intervention for intensive care unit (ICU) nurses, knowledge and judge of nurses for identifying delirium was increased (r = 0.71, P < 0.0005).

One of the best programs for education is educating the intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) (22, 24). It seems that it is more important to educate delirium detecting to medical teams (such as doctors and nurses). Therefore, in our study, the decreased level of delirium incidence is more plausible due to all interventions (more education especially for physicians and nurses). Knowing that it can be important, if the physician’s team can be educated for delirium screening, the incidence of delirium can also be prevented.

Another important factor in decreasing delirium incidence is environmental interventions (3). Thus, in the article written by Freedman et al., (25), it was demonstrated that mean noise arousal index in ICU environment was 1.9 ± 2.1 arousals/h sleep. Therefore, ICU patients have experienced environmental noise more than the normal level. It may induce delirium in these patients. In some other studies such as I Abraha et al., (26), it is shown that non-pharmacological interventions can help prevent from delirium. In articles by Siddiqi et al., (27), Brummel et al., (28), and Cole et al., (29), it was demonstrated that non-pharmacologic interventions can modify the risk factors in preventing from delirium. Another review study by Clegg A. et al., (30) indicated that some interventions can prevent delirium in older individuals, especially in ICU care. In other studies, 4 types of interventions are reported for delirium including: general geriatric approaches, nursing care, family interventions, and physicians’ team (3, 27-31).

We have some interventions to reduce the incidence of delirium risk factors, such as the placement of hearing aids and eyeglasses for patients who did not have impaired sight and hearing problems and so on.

In some studies, it is shown that delirium can be induced by some other patients’ situation like drug abuse (narcotics) (20, 32, 33). In our study, it was demonstrated that from all patients with delirium (3.3%), in the intervention group and (2.0%) in the control group, have consumed alcohol. In addition, subjects who did not have delirium (5.1%) are in the intervention group and (10.3%) are in the control group who have consumed alcohol. From the subjects with delirium, 0% in the intervention group and 0% in the control group have consumed opium; 5.1% from the subjects who did not have delirium in the intervention group and 13.8% in the control group were taking opium. From all subjects who had delirium, 13.3% in the intervention group and 16.0% in the control group were smokers and from all subjects who did not have delirium, 15.4% in the intervention group and 20.7% in the control group have been smokers.

In the article written by Kosten, it is shown that if we can manage the drug abuse, we may reduce delirium incidence and also, some prospective trials show that some drugs such as benzodiazepines can affect reducing delirium incidence more (RR= 4.9; P=0.04) (32).

It seems that it is so important to detect delirium early, especially in the ICU (2, 17-20, 32, 33). In some studies, it was demonstrated that delirium can increase the length of staying in the ICU (4, 34-38). In the article of Ley et al., the mean delirium duration was 3.4+/-1.9 days and the mean onset of delirium was 2.6 days (S.D.+/-1.7) (34). In the article of Ouimet S. et al., (35), the delirium patients had longer hospitalization (18.2+/-15.7 days) as well as a longer ICU stay (11.5+/-11.5 days).

In our study, we found that the average percent of days with delirium in intervention group was 26.18 ± 35.38 and in control group, it was 35.84 ± 39.31 (P = 0.001). The average percent of days in ICU in the intervention group was 5.26 ± 4.35 and in the control group it was 5.76 ± 4.36 (P = 0.1).

In sum, it is recommended that delirium can be reduced by education and environmental interventions. In addition, medical team orientation about delirium can help reduce its incidence.

One of the limitations in this study is the staffs’ collaboration; therefore, with explanation of the goals of study, the whole physicians’ team accepted to participate in our study; therefore, this education is more effective, however, some other variables such as leakage of an ICU bed can influence the delirium incidence. In our study, we did not evaluate the patients’ waiting for the ICU, therefore, it is recommended that this factor be evaluated in future studies.

In addition, education for delirium screening may be helpful for patients who are exposed to the risk of delirium; hence, this education can help these patients to prevent from delirium recurrence.

4.1. Conclusion

We found that delirium can be reduced by some interventions (such as educational and environmental changes), and also medical team orientation about delirium can help reduce the incidence of delirium.

References

  • 1.

    Ely EW, Margolin R, Francis J, May L, Truman B, Dittus R, et al. Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1370-9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00012. [PubMed: 11445689].

  • 2.

    Inouye SK. Delirium in older persons. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(11):1157-65. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra052321. [PubMed: 16540616].

  • 3.

    Inouye SK, Bogardus SJ, Charpentier PA, Leo-Summers L, Acampora D, Holford TR, et al. A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(9):669-76. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199903043400901. [PubMed: 10053175].

  • 4.

    Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, Gordon S, Francis J, May L, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.21.2703. [PubMed: 11730446].

  • 5.

    Pisani MA, Kong SY, Kasl SV, Murphy TE, Araujo KL, Van Ness PH. Days of delirium are associated with 1-year mortality in an older intensive care unit population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(11):1092-7. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200904-0537OC. [PubMed: 19745202].

  • 6.

    Morandi A, Brummel NE, Ely EW. Sedation, delirium and mechanical ventilation: the 'ABCDE' approach. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011;17(1):43-9. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283427243. [PubMed: 21169829].

  • 7.

    Mitasova A, Kostalova M, Bednarik J, Michalcakova R, Kasparek T, Balabanova P, et al. Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Crit Care Med. 2012;40(2):484-90. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232da12. [PubMed: 22001583].

  • 8.

    Roberts B. Screening for delirium in an adult intensive care unit. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2004;20(4):206-13. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2004.04.003. [PubMed: 15288874].

  • 9.

    Wang W, Li HL, Wang DX, Zhu X, Li SL, Yao GQ, et al. Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium incidence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial*. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(3):731-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182376e4f. [PubMed: 22067628].

  • 10.

    Aldemir M, Ozen S, Kara IH, Sir A, Bac B. Predisposing factors for delirium in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2001;5(5):265-70. doi: 10.1186/cc1044. [PubMed: 11737901].

  • 11.

    Pun BT, Gordon SM, Peterson JF, Shintani AK, Jackson JC, Foss J, et al. Large-scale implementation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the intensive care unit: a report from two medical centers. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):1199-205. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000166867.78320.AC. [PubMed: 15942331].

  • 12.

    Devlin JW, Fong JJ, Howard EP, Skrobik Y, McCoy N, Yasuda C, et al. Assessment of delirium in the intensive care unit: nursing practices and perceptions. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17(6):555-65. quiz 566. [PubMed: 18978240].

  • 13.

    Koster S, Hensens AG, Schuurmans MJ, van der Palen J. Risk factors of delirium after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;10(4):197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2010.09.001. [PubMed: 20870463].

  • 14.

    Pipanmekaporn T, Wongpakaran N, Mueankwan S, Dendumrongkul P, Chittawatanarat K, Khongpheng N, et al. Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:879-85. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S62660. [PubMed: 24904208].

  • 15.

    Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, Thomason JW, Wheeler AP, Gordon S, et al. Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA. 2003;289(22):2983-91. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.22.2983. [PubMed: 12799407].

  • 16.

    Van Rompaey B, Schuurmans MJ, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Truijen S, Elseviers M, Bossaert L. A comparison of the CAM-ICU and the NEECHAM Confusion Scale in intensive care delirium assessment: an observational study in non-intubated patients. Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R16. doi: 10.1186/cc6790. [PubMed: 18282269].

  • 17.

    Girard TD, Pandharipande PP, Ely EW. Delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2008;12 Suppl 3. S3. doi: 10.1186/cc6149. [PubMed: 18495054].

  • 18.

    Marshall MC, Soucy MD. Delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2003;26(3):172-8. doi: 10.1097/00002727-200307000-00002. [PubMed: 12930032].

  • 19.

    Wong N, Abraham G. Managing Delirium In The Emergency Department: Tools For Targeting Underlying Etiology. Emerg Med Pract. 2015;17(10):1-20. quiz 21. [PubMed: 26367083].

  • 20.

    Van Rompaey B, Elseviers MM, Schuurmans MJ, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Truijen S, Bossaert L. Risk factors for delirium in intensive care patients: a prospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2009;13(3):R77. doi: 10.1186/cc7892. [PubMed: 19457226].

  • 21.

    Tabet N, Howard R. Non-pharmacological interventions in the prevention of delirium. Age Ageing. 2009;38(4):374-9. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afp039. [PubMed: 19460856].

  • 22.

    Devlin JW, Fong JJ, Schumaker G, O'Connor H, Ruthazer R, Garpestad E. Use of a validated delirium assessment tool improves the ability of physicians to identify delirium in medical intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(12):2721-4. quiz 2725. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000292011.93074.82. [PubMed: 18074477].

  • 23.

    Gesin G, Russell BB, Lin AP, Norton HJ, Evans SL, Devlin JW. Impact of a delirium screening tool and multifaceted education on nurses' knowledge of delirium and ability to evaluate it correctly. Am J Crit Care. 2012;21(1):e1-11. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2012605. [PubMed: 22210704].

  • 24.

    Devlin JW, Marquis F, Riker RR, Robbins T, Garpestad E, Fong JJ, et al. Combined didactic and scenario-based education improves the ability of intensive care unit staff to recognize delirium at the bedside. Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R19. doi: 10.1186/cc6793. [PubMed: 18291021].

  • 25.

    Freedman NS, Gazendam J, Levan L, Pack AI, Schwab RJ. Abnormal sleep/wake cycles and the effect of environmental noise on sleep disruption in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(2):451-7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.2.9912128. [PubMed: 11179121].

  • 26.

    Abraha I, Trotta F, Rimland JM, Cruz-Jentoft A, Lozano-Montoya I, Soiza RL, et al. Efficacy of Non-Pharmacological Interventions to Prevent and Treat Delirium in Older Patients: A Systematic Overview. The SENATOR project ONTOP Series. PLoS One. 2015;10(6). e0123090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123090. [PubMed: 26062023].

  • 27.

    Siddiqi N, Stockdale R, Britton AM, Holmes J. Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2). CD005563. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005563.pub2. [PubMed: 17443600].

  • 28.

    Brummel NE, Girard TD. Preventing delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2013;29(1):51-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2012.10.007. [PubMed: 23182527].

  • 29.

    Cole MG, Primeau F, McCusker J. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalized patients: a systematic review. CMAJ. 1996;155(9):1263-8. [PubMed: 8911292].

  • 30.

    Clegg A, Siddiqi N, Heaven A, Young J, Holt R. Interventions for preventing delirium in older people in institutional long-term care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1). CD009537. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009537.pub2. [PubMed: 24488526].

  • 31.

    Fong TG, Tulebaev SR, Inouye SK. Delirium in elderly adults: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5(4):210-20. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.24. [PubMed: 19347026].

  • 32.

    Kosten TR, O'Connor PG. Management of drug and alcohol withdrawal. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(18):1786-95. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra020617. [PubMed: 12724485].

  • 33.

    Schuckit MA. Drug and alcohol abuse: A clinical guide to diagnosis and treatment. Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.

  • 34.

    Ely EW, Gautam S, Margolin R, Francis J, May L, Speroff T, et al. The impact of delirium in the intensive care unit on hospital length of stay. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(12):1892-900. doi: 10.1007/s00134-001-1132-2. [PubMed: 11797025].

  • 35.

    Ouimet S, Kavanagh BP, Gottfried SB, Skrobik Y. Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(1):66-73. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0399-8. [PubMed: 17102966].

  • 36.

    Thomason JW, Shintani A, Peterson JF, Pun BT, Jackson JC, Ely EW. Intensive care unit delirium is an independent predictor of longer hospital stay: a prospective analysis of 261 non-ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2005;9(4):R375-81. doi: 10.1186/cc3729. [PubMed: 16137350].

  • 37.

    Milbrandt EB, Deppen S, Harrison PL, Shintani AK, Speroff T, Stiles RA, et al. Costs associated with delirium in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(4):955-62. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000119429.16055.92. [PubMed: 15071384].

  • 38.

    Robinson BR, Mueller EW, Henson K, Branson RD, Barsoum S, Tsuei BJ. An analgesia-delirium-sedation protocol for critically ill trauma patients reduces ventilator days and hospital length of stay. J Trauma. 2008;65(3):517-26. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318181b8f6. [PubMed: 18784563].

  • COMMENTS

    LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: