Delirium in Advanced Cancer: Screening for the Incidence on Admission to an Inpatient Hospice Unit

The Role of Delirium on Short- and Long-Term Postoperative Outcomes Following Major Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The growing burden of an aging population has raised concerns about demands on healthcare systems and resources, particularly in the context of surgical and cancer care. Delirium can affect treatment outcomes and patient recovery. We sought to determine the prevalence of postoperative delirium among patients undergoing digestive tract surgery for malignant indications and to analyze the role of delirium on surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Medicare claims data were queried to identify patients diagnosed with esophageal, gastric, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers between 2018 and 2021. Postoperative delirium, occurring within 30 days of operation, was identified via International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition codes. Clinical outcomes of interested included "ideal" textbook outcome (TO), characterized as the absence of complications, an extended hospital stay, readmission within 90 days, or mortality within 90 days. Discharge disposition, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and expenditures also were examined.

RESULTS

Among 115,654 cancer patients (esophageal: n = 1854, 1.6%; gastric: n = 4690, 4.1%; hepatobiliary: n = 6873, 5.9%; pancreatic: n = 8912, 7.7%; colorectal: n = 93,325, 90.7%), 2831 (2.4%) were diagnosed with delirium within 30 days after surgery. On multivariable analysis, patients with delirium were less likely to achieve TO (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.25-0.30]). In particular, patients who experienced delirium had higher odds of complications (OR 3.00 [2.76-3.25]), prolonged length of stay (OR 3.46 [3.18-3.76]), 90-day readmission (OR 1.96 [1.81-2.12]), and 90-day mortality (OR 2.78 [2.51-3.08]). Furthermore, patients with delirium had higher ICU utilization (OR 2.85 [2.62-3.11]). Upon discharge, patients with delirium had a decreased likelihood of being sent home (OR 0.40 [0.36-0.46]) and instead were more likely to be transferred to a skilled nursing facility (OR 2.17 [1.94-2.44]). Due to increased utilization of hospital resources, patients with delirium incurred in-hospital expenditures that were 55.4% higher (no delirium: $16,284 vs. delirium: $28,742) and 90-day expenditures that were 100.7% higher (no delirium: $2564 vs. delirium: $8226) (both p < 0.001). Notably, 3-year postoperative survival was adversely affected by delirium (no delirium: 55.5% vs. delirium: 37.3%), even after adjusting risk for confounding factors (HR 1.79 [1.70-1.90]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative delirium occurred in one in 50 patients undergoing surgical resection of a digestive tract cancer. Delirium was linked to a reduced likelihood of achieving an optimal postoperative outcome, increased ICU utilization, higher expenditures, and a worse long-term prognosis. Initiatives to prevent delirium are vital to improve postoperative outcomes among cancer surgery patients.

The 4AT, a rapid delirium detection tool for use in hospice inpatient units: Findings from a validation study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a serious neuropsychiatric syndrome with adverse outcomes, which is common but often undiagnosed in terminally ill people. The 4 'A's test or 4AT (www.the4AT.com), a brief delirium detection tool, is widely used in general settings, but validation studies in terminally ill people are lacking.

AIM

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT in detecting delirium in terminally ill people, who are hospice inpatients.

DESIGN

A diagnostic test accuracy study in which participants underwent the 4AT and a reference standard based on the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The reference standard was informed by Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 and tests assessing arousal and attention. Assessments were conducted in random order by pairs of independent raters, blinded to the results of the other assessment.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Two hospice inpatient units in Scotland, UK. Participants were 148 hospice inpatients aged ⩾18 years.

RESULTS

A total of 137 participants completed both assessments. Three participants had an indeterminate reference standard diagnosis and were excluded, yielding a final sample of 134. Mean age was 70.3 (SD = 10.6) years. About 33% (44/134) had reference standard delirium. The 4AT had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 79%-98%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 90%-99%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-1).

CONCLUSION

The results of this validation study support use of the 4AT as a delirium detection tool in hospice inpatients, and add to the literature evaluating methods of delirium detection in palliative care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISCRTN 97417474.

Exploration of delirium assessment and management in a hospice inpatient unit

Background: Delirium is common across all palliative care settings. Guidelines exist to support the care of terminally ill people who develop delirium; yet the evidence base is limited. Recent surveys of palliative care specialists have suggested clinical practice is variable. Aim: To explore delirium assessment and management in a hospice inpatient setting. Methods: A mixed-methods study comprising a retrospective case note review of 21 patients admitted to a hospice inpatient unit and semi-structured interviews with seven hospice inpatient doctors and nurses. Results: A total of 62% of patients were screened for delirium on admission using the 4 As tool (4AT). The period prevalence of delirium was 76% during the 2-week study period. The term ‘delirium’ was documented infrequently in case notes, compared to other more ambiguous terms. Interview data suggested that nurses were unfamiliar with delirium screening tools. Conclusion: Lack of awareness about delirium screening tools and the infrequent use of the term ‘delirium’ may suggest that delirium goes under-recognised and under-treated. Further education and research are required to support the care of terminally ill people with delirium.

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).

"No thanks, I don't want to see snakes again": a qualitative study of pain management versus preservation of cognition in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Towards the end of life, use of opioid analgesics becomes more common in patients to control pain and improve quality of life. While pain medication may help manage pain, unwanted cognitive side effects are frequently noted. This balancing act presents a trade-off for patients between pain relief and adverse effects, where the desire to relieve pain must be evaluated against the desire to maintain cognitive clarity and may represent a difficult decision for patients receiving palliative care. Our goal was to understand how patients' decision making about pain medications balances the pain relief from those medications against the cognitive decline often associated with them.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients receiving home-based palliative care from a program in Toronto, Canada. Interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one interviews were conducted. Some patients preferred cognitive preservation over pain management because of a sense that cognition is central to their identity, the desire to maintain lucidity, a desire to continue participating in work or hobbies, and fear of addiction. Conversely, some patients preferred pain management over cognitive preservation because of a desire to avoid suffering, an inability to sleep without medications, or an acceptance of some cognitive compromise. A few patients attempted to find balance through tapering drugs, limiting their use of breakthrough analgesic doses, or using alternative strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision making around pain and pain management is a highly preference-sensitive process-with no clear right or wrong decisions, only the preferences of each patient. The findings from this study may influence the design of future patient-facing decision aids around pain management. Future studies should pilot interventions to better assist patients with this decision.

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.

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.

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.

Delirium Frequency and Risk Factors Among Patients With Cancer in Palliative Care Unit

Introductıon: Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13% and 88% but a particular frequency at the end of life yet often remains insufficiently diagnosed and managed. The aim of our study is to determine the frequency of delirium and identify factors associated with delirium at palliative care unit.

METHODS

Two hundred thirteen consecutive inpatients from October 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, were studied prospectively. Age, gender, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), length of stay in hospital, and delirium etiology and subtype were recorded. Delirium was diagnosed with using Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Text Revision ( DSM-IV TR) criteria.

RESULTS

The incidence of delirium among the patients with cancer was 49.8%. Mean age was 60.3 ± 14.8 (female 41%, male 59%, PPS 39.8%, PPI 5.9 ± 3.0, length of stay in hospital 8.6 ± 6.9 days). Univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that use of opioids, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, steroids, polypharmacy, infection, malnutrition, immobilization, sleep disturbance, constipation, hyperbilirubinemia, liver/renal failure, pulmonary failure/hypoxia, electrolyte imbalance, brain cancer/metastases, decreased PPS, and increased PPI were risk factors. Subtypes of delirium included hypoactive 49%, mixed 41%, and hyperactive 10%.

CONCLUSION

The communicative impediments associated with delirium generate distress for the patient, their family, and health care practitioners who might have to contend with agitation and difficulty in assessing pain and other symptoms. To manage delirium in patients with cancer, clinicians must be able to diagnose it accurately and undertake appropriate assessment of underlying causes.

Understanding cognition in older patients with cancer

Cancer and neurocognitive disorders, such as dementia and delirium, are common and serious diseases in the elderly that are accompanied by high degree of morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, evidence supports the under-diagnosis of both dementia and delirium in older adults. Complex questions exist regarding the interaction of dementia and delirium with cancer, beginning with guidelines on how best measure disease severity, the optimal screening test for either disorder, the appropriate level of intervention in the setting of abnormal findings, and strategies aimed at preventing the development or progression of either process. Ethical concerns emerge in the research setting, pertaining to the detection of cognitive dysfunction in participants, validity of consent, disclosure of abnormal results if screening is pursued, and recommended level of intervention by investigators. Furthermore, understanding the ways in which comorbid cognitive dysfunction and cancer impact both cancer and non-cancer-related outcomes is essential in guiding treatment decisions. In the following article, we will discuss what is presently known of the interactions of pre-existing cognitive impairment and delirium with cancer. We will also discuss identified deficits in our knowledge base, and propose ways in which innovative research may address these gaps.

Differential Associations Between Delirium and Mortality According to Delirium Subtype and Age: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the differential associations between delirium and mortality in terminally ill patients according to delirium subtype and age.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of terminally ill patients. Delirium was diagnosed using the confusion assessment method. Delirium subtypes were defined based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria and the Delirium Rating Scale-98-R. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to examine predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 322 cases, 98 patients (30.4%) were diagnosed as having delirium. The median (interquartile range) number of survival days after admission was 17.0 (10.0-36.0) days for patients with delirium and 28.0 (16.0-57.0) days for patients without delirium (p = .002). A multivariate analysis revealed that patients with hypoactive and mixed subtypes of delirium survived for shorter periods compared with patients without delirium (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.65 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.05-2.59, p = .029] and HR = 2.30 [95% CI = 1.44-3.69, p = .001], respectively). The hypoactive and mixed delirium subtypes exhibited significant interactions with age: younger age was associated with shorter periods of survival in patients with hypoactive and mixed subtype delirium (HR = 0.95 [95% CI = 0.93-0.98, p < .001] and HR = 0.97 [95% CI = 0.93-1.00, p = .038], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The hypoactive and mixed subtypes of delirium were associated with shorter survival periods in terminally ill patients, and these associations interacted significantly with age. These findings support the clinical and academic value of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition specifiers that differentiate the diagnoses of delirium subtypes.

Recent Insights on Prevalence and Corelations of Hypoactive Delirium

Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome which is common in all medical settings. It often goes unrecognized due to difficulties in the detection of its hypoactive variant. This review aims to provide an up-to-date account on recent research on hypoactive delirium (HD). Thirty-eight studies, which were conducted in various clinical settings, including the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), were included in this review. Those studies involved recent research that has been published during the last 6 years. Prevalence of HD was found to vary considerably among different settings. HD seems to be more common in critically ill patients and less common in patients examined by consultation-liaison psychiatric services and in mixed patient populations. The presence of HD in ICU patients was associated with higher short- and long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, but no such association was reported in other settings. Research on other possible associations of HD with clinical variables and on symptom presentation yielded inconclusive results, although there is some evidence for a possible association of HD with benzodiazepine use. There are several methodological issues that need to be addressed by future research. Future studies should examine HD in the primary care setting; treatment interventions should also be the objective of future research.

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.

Management of delirium in palliative care: a review

Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13 and 88 % but a particular frequency at the end of life (terminal delirium). By reviewing the most relevant studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLit, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library), a correct assessment to make the diagnosis (e.g., DSM-5, delirium assessment tools), the identification of the possible etiological factors, and the application of multicomponent and integrated interventions were reported as the correct steps to effectively manage delirium in palliative care. In terms of medications, both conventional (e.g., haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole) were shown to be equally effective in the treatment of delirium. No recommendation was possible in palliative care regarding the use of other drugs (e.g., α-2 receptors agonists, psychostimulants, cholinesterase inhibitors, melatonergic drugs). Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., behavioral and educational) were also shown to be important in the management of delirium. More research is necessary to clarify how to more thoroughly manage delirium in palliative care.