Practical assessment of delirium in palliative care

Associations of postoperative delirium with activities of daily living in older people after major surgery: A prospective cohort study

AIMS

To assess the association of postoperative delirium developed in the post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU) with older patients' ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) during the first five postoperative days.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have focused on the association between postoperative delirium and long-term function decline, however the association between postoperative delirium and the ability to perform ADL, particularly in the immediate postoperative period, needs further investigation.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A total of 271 older patients who underwent elective or emergency surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Victoria, Australia, participated in the study. Data were collected between July 2021 and December 2021. Delirium was assessed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). The Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (KATZ ADL) scale was used to measure ADL. ADL was assessed preoperatively and daily during the first five postoperative days. The STROBE checklist was used to report this study.

RESULTS

Results showed that 44 (16.2%) patients developed new episode of delirium. Postoperative delirium was independently associated with decline in ADL (RR = 2.83, 95% CI = 2.71-2.97; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative delirium was associated with a decline in ADL among older people during the first five postoperative days. Screening for delirium in the PACU is essential to identify delirium during the early stages of postoperative period and implement a timely comprehensive plan.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Delirium assessment of older patients in the PACU, and for at least the first five postoperative days, is strongly recommended. We also recommend engagement of patients in a focused physical and cognitive daily activity plan, particularly for older patients undergoing major surgery.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and nurses helped in data collection at a tertiary care hospital.

A revision of JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

OBJECTIVE

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer have recently revised the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the revised guidelines and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multi-disciplinary members, created three new clinical questions: non-pharmacological intervention and antipsychotics for the prevention of delirium and trazodone for the management of delirium. In addition, systematic reviews of nine existing clinical questions have been updated. Two independent reviewers reviewed the proposed articles. The certainty of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommended statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a compendium of the recommendations along with their rationales, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These revised guidelines will be useful for the prevention, assessment and management of delirium in adult cancer patients in Japan.

Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools

Background

Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of different combinations of delirium assessments performed in each enrolled patient.

Methods

Data were obtained from a previously conducted cross-sectional study. Eligible adult patients who remained admitted to ICU for >24 hours with at least one family member present were consecutively enrolled as patient-family dyads. Clinical delirium assessments (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist [ICSDC] and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU [CAM-ICU]) were completed twice daily by bedside nurse or trained research assistant, respectively. Family delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily by family members. We pooled all delirium assessment tools in a single two-class latent model and pairwise (i.e., combined, clinical or family assessments) Bayesian analyses.

Results

Seventy-three patient-family dyads were included. Among clinical delirium assessments, the ICDSC had lower sensitivity (0.72; 95% Bayesian Credible [BC] interval 0.54–0.92) and higher specificity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.82–0.97) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and CAM-ICU had higher sensitivity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.70–1.00) and higher specificity (0.94; 95%BC, 0.80–1.00). Among family delirium assessments, the Family Confusion Assessment Method had higher sensitivity (0.83; 95%BC, 0.71–0.92) and higher specificity (0.93; 95%BC, 0.84–0.98) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and the Sour Seven had higher specificity (0.85; 95%BC, 0.67–0.99) but lower sensitivity (0.64; 95%BC 0.47–0.82).

Conclusions

Results from delirium assessment tools are often combined owing to imperfect reference standards for delirium measurement. Pairwise Bayesian analyses that explicitly accounted for each tool’s (performed within same patient) prior sensitivity and specificity indicate that two combined clinical or two combined family delirium assessment tools have fair diagnostic accuracy.

Screening and Assessment Tools for Measuring Delirium in Patients with Cancer in Hospice and Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

Purpose

This study reviewed screening and assessment tools that are used to measure delirium in patients with cancer in hospice and palliative care settings and examined their psychometric properties.

Methods

Four databases were searched for studies using related search terms (delirium, tools, palliative care, cancer, and others). The inclusion criteria were a) studies that included screening/assessment tools for measuring delirium in cancer patients receiving hospice/palliative care, and b) studies published in English or Korean. The exclusion criteria were a) studies that were conducted in an intensive care setting, and b) case studies, qualitative studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses.

Results

Out of the 81 studies identified, only 10 examined the psychometric properties of tools for measuring delirium, and 8 tools were ultimately identified. The psychometric properties of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) were the most frequently examined (n=5), and the MDAS showed good reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale had good reliability and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 also showed good reliability and structural validity, but its diagnostic performance was not examined in hospice/palliative care settings. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale showed relatively low diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion

The MDAS showed evidence of being a valid assessment tool for assessing delirium in patients with cancer in palliative care. Few studies examined the diagnostic performance of delirium tools. Therefore, further studies are needed to examine the diagnostic performance of screening/assessment tools for the optimal detection of delirium in patients with cancer in hospice/palliative care.

Delirium and Its Pharmacological Causes in Older People, Part 1

Delirium is a syndrome that can arise from many causes or underlying conditions, and though it has been reported in younger patients, it is more prevalent in older people, though it can occur in other age groups as well. Identifying delirium is challenging in older people because of the coexistence of underlying dementia or depression, which may further complicate the presentation. Drug-induced delirium is one of the major causes of delirium, and evaluation of this potential cause or contribution is an important component of the evaluation process, since it can lead to poor patient outcomes. This article will review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, evaluation, diagnostic process, and causes of delirium in older people, with a focus on the pharmacological causes.

Validation of the 4AT tool for delirium assessment in specialist palliative care settings: protocol of a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a serious and distressing neuropsychiatric condition, which is prevalent across all palliative care settings. Hypoactive delirium is particularly common, but difficult to recognize, partly due to overlapping symptoms with depression and dementia. Delirium screening tools can lead to earlier identification and hence better management of patients. The 4AT (4 'A's Test) is a brief tool for delirium detection, designed for use in clinical practice. It has been validated in 17 studies in over 3,700 patients. The test is currently used in specialist palliative care units, but has not been validated in this setting. The aim of the study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection against a reference standard, in hospice inpatients.

METHODS

240 participants will be recruited from the inpatient units of two hospices in Scotland. If a patient lacks capacity to consent, agreement will be sought from a legal proxy. Each participant will complete the 4AT and a reference standard assessment based on the diagnostic delirium criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This will be supplemented by tests of cognition and attention, including reverse days of the week, counting down from 20 to 1, Vigilance 'A', the Observational Scale for Level of Arousal, the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98. The assessments will be conducted in a randomized order by two independent clinicians, who will be blinded to the results until both are complete. Primary outcomes will be the sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT in detecting delirium.

DISCUSSION

The findings will inform clinical practice regarding delirium assessment in palliative care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN97417474 (21/02/2020).

Delirium screening tools validated in the context of palliative care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a distressing neuropsychiatric disorder affecting patients in palliative care. Although many delirium screening tools exist, their utility, and validation within palliative care settings has not undergone systematic review.

AIM

To systematically review studies that validate delirium screening tools conducted in palliative care settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019125481). A risk of bias assessment via Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was performed.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were systematically searched (January 1, 1982-May 3, 2020). Quantitative studies validating a screening tool in adult palliative care patient populations were included. Studies involving alcohol withdrawal, critical or perioperative care were excluded.

RESULTS

Dual-reviewer screening of 3749 unique titles and abstracts identified 95 studies for full-text review and of these, 17 studies of 14 screening tools were included (n = 3496 patients). Data analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity in patient demographics and variability in screening and diagnostic practices that limited generalizability between study populations and care settings. A risk of bias assessment revealed methodological and reporting deficits, with only 3/17 studies at low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The processes of selecting a delirium screening tool and determining optimal screening practices in palliative care are complex. One tool is unlikely to fit the needs of the entire palliative care population across all palliative care settings. Further research should be directed at evaluating and/or adapting screening tools and practices to fit the needs of specific palliative care settings and populations.

Dexmedetomidine for hyperactive delirium at the end of life: An open-label single arm pilot study with dose escalation in adult patients admitted to an inpatient palliative care unit

BACKGROUND

Terminal delirium, specifically the hyperactive delirium subtype at the end of life, is common in palliative care patients. Standard care often involves sedation to alleviate distress. The alpha₂-adrenoreceptor agonist dexmedetomidine may have promise in terminal delirium, due to its properties of decreasing delirium and permitting rousable sedation.

AIM

This study aimed to describe the effect of dexmedetomidine on delirium and sedation, when delivered via continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSCI) in patients with terminal delirium.

DESIGN

The trial was prospectively registered in the ANZCTR database (ACTRN12618000658213) and conducted in accordance with CONSORT (pilot study extension). Twenty-two adult patients were treated with a CSCI of dexmedetomidine with a two-tier dose schedule, low and high dose. Delirium severity was measured by the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS, target <13), and sedation by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, Palliative Version (RASS-PAL, target -1 to -3).

RESULTS

All patients had a response to dexmedetomidine as measured by decrease in MDAS after initiation; 59% required escalation to high dose to maintain control of delirium. All responses to high dose were sustained. RASS-PAL scores showed significant variability, however mean scores remained within target range on both doses, and the majority of patients were rousable. Fifty percent of patients treated crossed over to standard care; no patients who crossed over were experiencing moderate-severe delirium. Predominant reason for crossover was family request for deeper sedation.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine shows potential for the management of terminal delirium with improved interactivity. Further research is needed to determine efficacy compared to current standard care.

Phenomenological examinations of delirium in advanced cancer patients: exploratory structural equation modelling and latent profile analysis

Background

This study examined phenomenological manifestations of delirium in advanced cancer patients by examining the factor structure of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) and profiles of delirium symptoms.

Methods

Ninety-three patients with advanced cancer admitted to inpatient palliative care units in South Korea were examined by psychiatrists using the DRS-R-98 and the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). The factor structure of the DRS-R-98 was examined by exploratory structural equation modelling analysis (ESEM) and profiles of delirium were examined by latent profile analysis (LPA).

Results

CAM-defined delirium was present in 66.6% (n = 62) of patients. Results from the ESEM analysis confirmed applicability of the core and noncore symptom factors of the DRS-R-98 to advanced cancer patients. LPA identified three distinct profiles of delirium characterizing the overall severity of delirium and its core and noncore symptoms. Class 1 (n = 55, 59.1%) showed low levels of all delirium symptoms. Class 2 (n = 17, 18.3%) showed high levels of core symptoms only, whereas Class 3 (n = 21, 22.6%) showed high levels of both core and noncore symptoms except motor retardation.

Conclusions

Clinical care for delirium in advanced cancer patients may benefit from consideration of the core and noncore symptom factor structure and the three distinct phenomenological profiles of delirium observed in the present study.

JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer recently launched the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. The aim of the guidelines was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the guideline and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multidisciplinary members, formulated nine clinical questions. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles published prior to through 31 May 2016. Each article was reviewed by two independent reviewers. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommendation statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a summary of the recommendations with rationales for each, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines will support the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. However, additional clinical studies are warranted to further improve the management of delirium.

Delirium screening in patients in a palliative care ward: a best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to promote evidence-based practice in screening for delirium in patients in the palliative care ward of a cancer hospital in Shanghai.

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is common but under recognized among patients in palliative care settings. Early detection is essential for timely management. Practice guidelines recommend an initial screening at first contact, followed by continuous screening.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute's three-phase Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and the Getting Research into Practice audit and feedback tool were used to enhance evidence-based practice. In phase 1, four audit criteria were developed and a baseline audit was conducted. In phase 2, barriers to compliance were identified, and strategies were adopted to promote best practice. In phase 3, a follow-up audit was conducted.

RESULTS

In the baseline audit, no delirium screening was performed, either on admission or regularly during hospitalization, hence compliance with these two audit criteria was 0%. Two out of 18 nurses had received training in delirium management, however neither had been trained to use the delirium screening tool. Compliance with the two criteria for nurse training was 11% and 0%, respectively. Four barriers were identified, including lack of a standardized screening tool, lack of a standardized screening procedure, inadequate knowledge on the part of the nurses, and potential inconsistencies between nurses in the rating of screening criteria. After applying strategies to address these barriers, compliance with the four audit criteria was 100%, 100%, 72%, and 72%, respectively, in the follow-up audit.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practice in delirium screening was successfully established in the ward.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

Validity and Reliability of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale-Thai Version (MDAS-T) for Assessment of Delirium in Palliative Care Patients

Background

Delirium, a neuropsychiatric syndrome that occurs throughout medical illness trajectories, is frequently misdiagnosed. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) is a commonly used tool in palliative care (PC) settings. Our objective was to establish and validate the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale‐Thai version (MDAS‐T) in PC patients.

Materials and Methods

The MDAS was translated into Thai. Content validity, inter‐rater reliability, and internal consistency were explored. The construct validity of the MDAS‐T was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Instrument testing of the MDAS‐T, the Thai version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM‐ICU‐T), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition as the gold standard was performed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal cutoff score. The duration of each assessment was recorded.

Results

The study enrolled 194 patients. The content validity index was 0.97. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's α coefficient were 0.98 and 0.96, respectively. A principal component analysis indicated a homogeneous, one‐factor structure. The area under the ROC curve was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–0.99). The best combination of sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of the MDAS‐T were 0.92 (0.85–0.96) and 0.90 (0.82–0.94), respectively, with a cutoff score of 9, whereas the CAM‐ICU‐T yielded 0.58 (0.48–0.67) and 0.98 (0.93–0.99), respectively. The median MDAS‐T assessment time was 5 minutes.

Conclusion

This study established and validated the MDAS‐T as a good and feasible tool for delirium screening and severity rating in PC settings.

Implications for Practice

Delirium is prevalent in palliative care (PC) settings and causes distress to patients and families, thereby making delirium screening necessary. This study found that the MDAS‐T is a highly objective and feasible test for delirium screening and severity monitoring in PC settings and can greatly improve the quality of care for this population.

Delirium is often misdiagnosed. This article reports on the value of assessment tools for diagnosis of delirium, in particular the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, which was translated into Thai for purposes of this study.

Use of the brief Confusion Assessment Method in a veteran palliative care population: A pilot validation study

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with advanced serious illness or at the end of life experience delirium, a potentially reversible form of acute brain dysfunction, which may impair ability to participate in medical decision-making and to engage with their loved ones. Screening for delirium provides an opportunity to address modifiable causes. Unfortunately, delirium remains underrecognized. The main objective of this pilot was to validate the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM), a two-minute delirium-screening tool, in a veteran palliative care sample.

METHOD

This was a pilot prospective, observational study that included hospitalized patients evaluated by the palliative care service at a single Veterans' Administration Medical Center. The bCAM was compared against the reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. Both assessments were blinded and conducted within 30 minutes of each other.

RESULT

We enrolled 36 patients who were a median of 67 years (interquartile range 63-73). The primary reasons for admission to the hospital were sepsis or severe infection (33%), severe cardiac disease (including heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and myocardial infarction) (17%), or gastrointestinal/liver disease (17%). The bCAM performed well against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, for detecting delirium, with a sensitivity (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.4, 0.96) and specificity of 0.87 (0.67, 0.96).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Delirium was present in 27% of patients enrolled and never recognized by the palliative care service in routine clinical care. The bCAM provided good sensitivity and specificity in a pilot of palliative care patients, providing a method for nonpsychiatrically trained personnel to detect delirium.

The incidence and prevalence of delirium across palliative care settings: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common and distressing neurocognitive condition that frequently affects patients in palliative care settings and is often underdiagnosed.

AIM

Expanding on a 2013 review, this systematic review examines the incidence and prevalence of delirium across all palliative care settings.

DESIGN

This systematic review and meta-analyses were prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were examined for primary research studies published between 1980 and 2018. Studies on adult, non-intensive care and non-postoperative populations, either receiving or eligible to receive palliative care, underwent dual reviewer screening and data extraction. Studies using standardized delirium diagnostic criteria or valid assessment tools were included.

RESULTS

Following initial screening of 2596 records, and full-text screening of 153 papers, 42 studies were included. Patient populations diagnosed with predominantly cancer (n = 34) and mixed diagnoses (n = 8) were represented. Delirium point prevalence estimates were 4%-12% in the community, 9%-57% across hospital palliative care consultative services, and 6%-74% in inpatient palliative care units. The prevalence of delirium prior to death across all palliative care settings (n = 8) was 42%-88%. Pooled point prevalence on admission to inpatient palliative care units was 35% (confidence interval = 0.29-0.40, n = 14). Only one study had an overall low risk of bias. Varying delirium screening and diagnostic practices were used.

CONCLUSION

Delirium is prevalent across all palliative care settings, with one-third of patients delirious at the time of admission to inpatient palliative care. Study heterogeneity limits meta-analyses and highlights the future need for rigorous studies.

Delirium management by palliative medicine specialists: a survey from the association for palliative medicine of Great Britain and Ireland

OBJECTIVES

Delirium is common in palliative care settings. Management includes detection, treatment of cause(s), non-pharmacological interventions and family support; strategies which are supported with varying levels of evidence. Emerging evidence suggests that antipsychotic use should be minimised in managing mild to moderate severity delirium, but the integration of this evidence into clinical practice is unknown.

METHODS

A 21-question online anonymous survey was emailed to Association for Palliative Medicine members in current clinical practice (n=859), asking about delirium assessment, management and research priorities.

RESULTS

Response rate was 39%: 70% of respondents were palliative medicine consultants. Delirium guidelines were used by some: 42% used local guidelines but 38% used none. On inpatient admission, 59% never use a delirium screening tool. Respondents would use non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium, either alone (39%) or with an antipsychotic (58%). Most respondents (91%) would prescribe an antipsychotic and 6% a benzodiazepine, for distressing hallucinations unresponsive to non-pharmacological measures. Inpatient (57%) and community teams (60%) do not formally support family carers. Research priorities were delirium prevention, management and prediction of reversibility.

CONCLUSION

This survey of UK and Irish Palliative Medicine specialists shows that delirium screening at inpatient admission is suboptimal. Most specialists continue to use antipsychotics in combination with non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium. More support for family carers should be routinely provided by clinical teams. Further rigorously designed clinical trials are urgently needed in view of management variability, emerging evidence and perceived priorities for research.

A Scoping Review to Map Empirical Evidence Regarding Key Domains and Questions in the Clinical Pathway of Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps.

OBJECTIVES

To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes.

METHODS

A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse- and physician-delirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent.

RESULTS

Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence gaps exist, providing opportunities for future research regarding the assessment, prognosis, and management of delirium in PC settings.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

Validity of the Delirium Observation Screening Scale in Identifying Delirium in Home Hospice Patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in home hospice patients and conveys significant morbidity to both patients and caregivers. The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) was developed to improve delirium recognition but has yet to be validated in the home hospice setting.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aimed to explore the accuracy of the DOS for identifying delirium in home hospice patients.

DESIGN

Prospective delirium evaluation using a convenience sample.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Community hospice patients were approached for study inclusion.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants were assessed using the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), with results being categorized as "delirium" or "no delirium." The Delirium Observation Screening Scale scores, completed by hospice nurses during weekly patient assessment visits, were compared to the DRS-R-98 results.

RESULTS

Within this population, 30/78 (38%) assessments were categorized as delirious. In the majority of assessments, 69/75 (92%), the DRS-R-98 and DOS provided congruent results. There were 5 false positives and 1 false negative, demonstrating the DOS to be a clinically useful tool with a sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.89.

CONCLUSION

The DOS appears to be an accurate way to screen for delirium in home hospice patients. Validation of the DOS may help to improve delirium recognition and treatment and has the potential to increase quality of life in this vulnerable population. This input will also be taken into consideration in the development of a systematic screening procedure for delirium diagnosis at our local hospice, which we hope will be generalizable to other hospice agencies.

Improving delirium recognition and assessment for people receiving inpatient palliative care: a mixed methods meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a serious acute neurocognitive condition frequently occurring for hospitalized patients, including those receiving care in specialist palliative care units. There are many delirium evidence-practice gaps in palliative care, including that the condition is under-recognized and challenging to assess.

OBJECTIVES

To report the meta-synthesis of a research project investigating delirium epidemiology, systems and nursing practice in palliative care units.

METHODS

The Delirium in Palliative Care (DePAC) project was a two-phase sequential transformative mixed methods design with knowledge translation as the theoretical framework. The project answered five different research questions about delirium epidemiology, systems of care and nursing practice in palliative care units. Data integration and metasynthesis occurred at project conclusion.

RESULTS

There was a moderate to high rate of delirium occurrence in palliative care unit populations; and palliative care nurses had unmet delirium knowledge needs and worked within systems and team processes that were inadequate for delirium recognition and assessment. The meta-inference of the DePAC project was that a widely-held but paradoxical view that palliative care and dying patients are different from the wider hospital population has separated them from the overall generation of delirium evidence, and contributed to the extent of practice deficiencies in palliative care units.

CONCLUSION

Improving palliative care nurses' capabilities to recognize and assess delirium will require action at the patient and family, nurse, team and system levels. A broader, hospital-wide perspective would accelerate implementation of evidence-based delirium care for people receiving palliative care, both in specialist units, and the wider hospital setting.

Delirium in the elderly: Current problems with increasing geriatric age

Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition seen relatively commonly in people aged 65 yr or older. The prevalence is estimated to be between 11 and 42 per cent for elderly patients on medical wards. The prevalence is also high in nursing homes and long term care (LTC) facilities. The consequences of delirium could be significant such as an increase in mortality in the hospital, long-term cognitive decline, loss of autonomy and increased risk to be institutionalized. Despite being a common condition, it remains under-recognised, poorly understood and not adequately managed. Advanced age and dementia are the most important risk factors. Pain, dehydration, infections, stroke and metabolic disturbances, and surgery are the most common triggering factors. Delirium is preventable in a large proportion of cases and therefore, it is also important from a public health perspective for interventions to reduce further complications and the substantial costs associated with these. Since the aetiology is, in most cases, multfactorial, it is important to consider a multi-component approach to management, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Detection and treatment of triggering causes must have high priority in case of delirium. The aim of this review is to highlight the importance of delirium in the elderly population, given the increasing numbers of ageing people as well as increasing geriatric age.

Bispectral Index Monitoring in Terminally Ill Patients: A Validation Study

CONTEXT

If regular therapies cannot relieve symptoms sufficiently in the last days of life, continuous palliative sedation may serve to reduce consciousness. Sedation level can be measured with EEG monitoring with the bispectral index (BIS) monitor.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility and validity of BIS monitoring in terminally ill patients.

METHODS

In this prospective study, BIS registrations were performed in unconscious end-of-life patients admitted to a palliative care center. Validated scores were used to measure level of sedation (Ramsay score), pain (Numeric Rating Scale or Rotterdam Elderly Pain Observations Scale), delirium (Delirium Observation Screening score), and overall comfort (Numeric Rating Scale). Validity and sensitivity to change of BIS values were considered, and the effects of medication and the time till death on BIS values were evaluated in a linear mixed model analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included for analysis. BIS monitoring was acceptable to patients, relatives, and medical staff. BIS values were moderately correlated with Ramsay scores (0.46) but were highly variable for deeply sedated patients. BIS values changed significantly before and after a midazolam dose (P < 0.001). Midazolam treatment resulted on average in a statistically significant reduction of the BIS values (-4.5, 95% CI -7.0 to -2.0), whereas morphine and haloperidol did not.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first validation studies in which BIS monitoring in end-of-life patients is described. BIS monitoring is feasible in unconscious terminally ill patients. However, based on our results, the wide range of BIS values in deeply sedated and comfortable patients seems to hamper its use in daily clinical practice.

Palliative Care in the Emergency Department

Patients seek care in the emergency department (ED) for immediate relief of pain or other symptoms. Emergency physicians are trained to provide care that focuses on disease-directed treatment of acute illnesses; the ED is not considered an entry point for palliative care. Despite this, many patients with chronic or end-stage diseases seek treatment in the ED each year. Improving quality of life (QOL) is an overarching principle of palliative care. The ED is poised to improve patients' QOL by providing palliative interventions to manage pain and exacerbations of chronic illnesses or care near the end of life.

Delirium diagnosis, screening and management

Purpose of review

Our review focuses on recent developments across many settings regarding the diagnosis, screening and management of delirium, so as to inform these aspects in the context of palliative and supportive care.

Recent findings

Delirium diagnostic criteria have been updated in the long-awaited Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. Studies suggest that poor recognition of delirium relates to its clinical characteristics, inadequate interprofessional communication and lack of systematic screening. Validation studies are published for cognitive and observational tools to screen for delirium. Formal guidelines for delirium screening and management have been rigorously developed for intensive care, and may serve as a model for other settings. Given that palliative sedation is often required for the management of refractory delirium at the end of life, a version of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, modified for palliative care, has undergone preliminary validation.

Summary

Although formal systematic delirium screening with brief but sensitive tools is strongly advocated for patients in palliative and supportive care, it requires critical evaluation in terms of clinical outcomes, including patient comfort. Randomized controlled trials are needed to inform the development of guidelines for the management of delirium in this setting.

Medication use during end-of-life care in a palliative care centre

Background In end-of-life care, symptoms of discomfort are mainly managed by drug therapy, the guidelines for which are mainly based on expert opinions. A few papers have inventoried drug prescriptions in palliative care settings, but none has reported the frequency of use in combination with doses and route of administration. Objective To describe doses and routes of administration of the most frequently used drugs at admission and at day of death. Setting Palliative care centre in the Netherlands. Method In this retrospective cohort study, prescription data of deceased patients were extracted from the electronic medical records. Main outcome measure Doses, frequency and route of administration of prescribed drugs Results All regular medication prescriptions of 208 patients, 89 % of whom had advanced cancer, were reviewed. The three most prescribed drugs were morphine, midazolam and haloperidol, to 21, 11 and 23 % of patients at admission, respectively. At the day of death these percentages had increased to 87, 58 and 50 %, respectively. Doses of these three drugs at the day of death were statistically significantly higher than at admission. The oral route of administration was used in 89 % of patients at admission versus subcutaneous in 94 % at the day of death. Conclusions Nearing the end of life, patients in this palliative care centre receive discomfort-relieving drugs mainly via the subcutaneous route. However, most of these drugs are unlicensed for this specific application and guidelines are based on low level of evidence. Thus, there is every reason for more clinical research on drug use in palliative care.

An analytical framework for delirium research in palliative care settings: integrated epidemiologic, clinician-researcher, and knowledge user perspectives

CONTEXT

Delirium often presents difficult management challenges in the context of goals of care in palliative care settings.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to formulate an analytical framework for further research on delirium in palliative care settings, prioritize the associated research questions, discuss the inherent methodological challenges associated with relevant studies, and outline the next steps in a program of delirium research.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting, relevant literature searches, focused input of epidemiologic expertise, and a meeting participant and coauthor survey to formulate a conceptual research framework and prioritize research questions.

RESULTS

Our proposed framework incorporates three main groups of research questions: the first was predominantly epidemiologic, such as delirium occurrence rates, risk factor evaluation, screening, and diagnosis; the second covers pragmatic management questions; and the third relates to the development of predictive models for delirium outcomes. Based on aggregated survey responses to each research question or domain, the combined modal ratings of "very" or "extremely" important confirmed their priority.

CONCLUSION

Using an analytical framework to represent the full clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care settings, we identified multiple knowledge gaps in relation to the occurrence rates, assessment, management, and outcome prediction of delirium in this population. The knowledge synthesis generated from adequately powered, multicenter studies to answer the framework's research questions will inform decision making and policy development regarding delirium detection and management and thus help to achieve better outcomes for patients in palliative care settings.

End-of-life delirium: issues regarding recognition, optimal management, and the role of sedation in the dying phase

CONTEXT

In end-of-life care, delirium is often not recognized and poses unique management challenges, especially in the case of refractory delirium in the terminal phase.

OBJECTIVES

To review delirium in the terminal phase context, specifically in relation to recognition issues; the decision-making processes and management strategies regarding its reversibility; the potential refractoriness of delirium to symptomatic treatment; and the role of sedation in refractory delirium.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant electronic database literature searches (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) to inform this narrative review.

RESULTS

The overall management strategy for delirium at the end of life is directed by the patient's prognosis in association with the patient's goals of care. As symptoms of delirium are often refractory in the terminal phase, especially in the case of agitated delirium, the judicious use of palliative sedation is frequently required. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence for the management of delirium in the terminal phase, including the role of antipsychotics and optimal sedation strategies. For the family and health-care staff, clear communication, education, and emotional support are vital components to assist with decision making and direct the treatment care plan.

CONCLUSION

Further research on the effectiveness of delirium management strategies in the terminal phase for patients and their families is required. Further validation of assessment tools for diagnostic screening and severity measurement is needed in this patient population.

Delirium diagnostic and classification challenges in palliative care: subsyndromal delirium, comorbid delirium-dementia, and psychomotor subtypes

CONTEXT

Delirium often presents difficult diagnostic and classification challenges in palliative care settings.

OBJECTIVES

To review three major areas that create diagnostic and classification challenges in relation to delirium in palliative care: subsyndromal delirium (SSD), delirium in the context of comorbid dementia, and classification of psychomotor subtypes, and to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities in relation to these three areas of focus.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant PubMed literature searches as the knowledge synthesis strategy in this review.

RESULTS

We identified six (SSD), 33 (dementia), and 44 (psychomotor subtypes) articles of relevance in relation to the focus of our review. Recent literature data highlight the frequency and impact of SSD, the relevance of comorbid dementia, and the propensity for a hypoactive presentation of delirium in the palliative population. The differential diagnoses to consider are wide and include pain, fatigue, mood disturbance, psychoactive medication effects, and other causes for altered consciousness.

CONCLUSION

Challenges in the diagnosis and classification of delirium in people with advanced disease are compounded by the generalized disturbance of central nervous system function that occurs in the seriously ill, often with comorbid illness, including dementia. Further research is needed to delineate the pathophysiological and clinical associations of these presentations and thus inform therapeutic strategies. The expanding aged population and growing focus on dementia care in palliative care highlight the need to conduct this research.