Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency of Four Delirium Screening Protocols

Real-World Adherence to a Delirium Screening Test Administered by Nurses and Medical Staff during Routine Patient Care

Delirium is often the first symptom of incipient acute illness or complications and must therefore be detected promptly. Nevertheless, routine screening for delirium in acute care hospital wards is often inadequate. We recently implemented a simple, user-friendly delirium screening test (RMA) that can be administered during ward rounds and routine nursing care. The test was found to be non-inferior to 4AT in terms of sensitivity and specificity. However, the dominant factors to take into account when assessing the performance of a test added to the routine work of busy acute care hospital wards are ease of administration, real-life amenability and the ability of the staff to adhere to testing requirements. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of daily RMA tests that were not administered as scheduled and the impact of these omissions on the overall real-world performance of RMA. Using point-in-time assessments of 4AT by an external rater, we found that complete RMA was administered in 88.8% of the days. Physicians omitted significantly more tests than nurses, but their results were more specific for delirium. Omissions reduced the sensitivity and specificity of RMA for delirium (compared to 4AT) from 90.7% to 81.7%, and from 99.2% to 87.8%, respectively. Ideally, the number of omitted RMA tests should be minimized. However, if over 85% of the daily quota of complete tests are administered, the sensitivity and specificity of RMA for diagnosing delirium as soon as it appears remain at acceptable levels.

Requesting That Delirium Achieve Parity With Acute Encephalopathy in the MS-DRG System

Since 2007, the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups classification system has favored billing codes for acute encephalopathy over delirium codes in determining hospital reimbursement and several quality-of-care value metrics, despite broad overlap between these sets of diagnostic codes. Toxic and metabolic encephalopathy codes are designated as major complication or comorbidity, whereas causally specified delirium codes are designated as complication or comorbidity and thus associated with a lower reimbursement and lesser impact on value metrics. The authors led a submission to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requesting that causally specified delirium be designated major complication or comorbidity alongside toxic and metabolic encephalopathy. Delirium warrants reclassification because it satisfies U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' guiding principles for re-evaluating Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group severity levels. Delirium: (1) has a bidirectional relationship with the permanent condition of dementia (major neurocognitive disorder per DSM-5-TR), (2) indexes vulnerability across populations, (3) impacts healthcare systems across levels of care, (4) complicates postoperative recovery, (5) consigns patients to higher levels of care, (6) impedes patient engagement in care, (7) has several recent treatment guidelines, (8) often indicates neuronal/brain injury, and (9) represents a common expression of terminal illness. The proposal's impact was explored using the 2019 National Inpatient Sample, which suggested that increasing delirium's complexity designation would lead to an upcoding of less than 1% of eligible discharges. Parity for delirium is essential to enhancing awareness of delirium's clinical and economic costs. Appreciating delirium's impact would encourage delirium prevention and screening efforts, thereby mitigating its dire outcomes for patients, families, and healthcare systems.

Validation of a viable delirium detection test performed by nurses and physicians during routine patient care

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a frequent mental impairment in geriatric patients hospitalized in acute care facilities. It carries a high risk of complications and is often the first symptom of acute illness. It is clearly important to identify the development of delirium at an early stage, and several short and effective diagnostic tests have been developed and validated for this purpose. Despite this, patients on hospital wards are seldom monitored for signs of emergent delirium, suggesting that compliance with guidelines would be improved by introducing a simpler and more user-friendly test.

METHODS

We recently implemented a simple delirium assessment tool, called RMA that can be introduced into the daily routine of ward staff without significantly adding to their workload. The nurses noted their impression of the patient's cognitive state in the electronic medical record, and during the morning round the ward physician administered a short attention test to any patients suspected of new cognitive impairment. In this study, we compared RMA test against the widely used and well validated 4AT.

RESULTS

RMA performed daily by the ward staff was found to be non-inferior to 4AT performed by an experienced rater. Compared to 4AT, R&M had a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 98.3%. An Altman-Bland plot indicated that both tests can be used interchangeably.

CONCLUSIONS

The RMA test is reliable, easy to administer, likely to boost compliance with guidelines, and is expected to raise awareness of delirium among the nurses and physicians directly involved in the diagnostic process.

Current Trends for Delirium Screening within the Emergency Department

Delirium is an acute neurological disorder that involves attention and cognition. It is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality among older people (>65 years old). In the context of the Emergency Department (ED), it is frequently experienced by patients but often not recognized. Literature studies have identified some screening instruments for an initial evaluation of delirium. Most of these tools have not been validated yet in the context of emergencies, but, in other settings, they were very useful for assessing and maximizing the recognition of this condition among older patients. We conducted a review of the literature, including randomized control trials, clinical and observational studies, and research studies published in recent years, confirming that most of the screening tools for delirium used in the intensive care unit (ICU) or the geriatric department have not been tested in the ED, and the ideal timing and form of the delirium assessment process for older adults have not been defined yet. The aim of our review is to summarize the updated evidence about the screening tools for delirium in the context of the ED, due to the fact that overcrowding of the ED and the stressful condition of emergency situations (that contribute to the onset of delirium) could expose older patients to a high risk of complications and mortality if delirium is not promptly recognized. In conclusion, we support the evidence that delirium is a current and real condition that emergency physicians have to face daily, and we are aware that more research is needed to explore this field in order to improve the overall outcomes of older patients admitted to the ED.

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05346588.

The Modified and Extended Hospital Elder Life Program: A remote model of care to expand delirium prevention

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication of hospitalization and is associated with poor outcomes. Multicomponent delirium prevention strategies such as the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) have proven effective but rely on face-to-face intervention protocols and volunteer staff, which was not possible due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed the Modified and Extended Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP-ME), an innovative adaptation of HELP for remote and/or physically distanced applications.

METHODS

HELP-ME protocols were adapted from well-established multicomponent delirium prevention strategies and were implemented at four expert HELP sites. Each site contributed to the protocol modifications and compilation of a HELP-ME Operations Manual with standardized protocols and training instructions during three expert panel working groups. Implementation was overseen and monitored during seven learning sessions plus four coaching sessions from January 8, 2021, through September 24, 2021. Feasibility of implementing HELP-ME was measured by protocol adherence rates. Focus groups were conducted to evaluate the acceptability, provide feedback, and identify facilitators and barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were enrolled across four sites, and data were collected for 214 patient-days. Overall adherence was 82% (1473 completed protocols/1798 patient-days), achieving our feasibility target of >75% overall adherence. Individual adherence rates ranged from 55% to 96% across sites for the individual protocols. Protocols with high adherence rates included the nursing delirium protocol (96%), nursing medication review (96%), vision (89%), hearing (87%), and orientation (88%), whereas lower adherence occurred with fluid repletion (64%) and range-of-motion exercises (55%). Focus group feedback was generally positive for acceptability, with recommendations that an optimal approach would be hybrid, balancing in-person and remote interventions for potency and long-term sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

HELP-ME was fully implemented at four HELP sites, demonstrating feasibility and acceptability. Testing hybrid approaches and evaluating effectiveness is recommended for future work.

Deconstructing delirium in the post anaesthesia care unit

The course of neuro-cognitive recovery following anaesthesia and surgery is distinctive and poorly understood. Our objective was to identify patterns of neuro-cognitive recovery of the domains routinely assessed for delirium diagnosis in the post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and to compare them to the cognitive recovery patterns observed in other studies; thereby aiding in the identification of pathological (high risk) patterns of recovery in the PACU. We also compared which of the currently available tests (3D-CAM, CAM-ICU, and NuDESC) is the best to use in PACU. This was a post hoc secondary analysis of data from the Alpha Max study which involved 200 patients aged over 60 years, scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia lasting more than 2 h. These patients were assessed for delirium at 30 min following arrival in the PACU, if they were adequately arousable (Richmond Agitation Sedation Score ≥ −2). All tests for delirium diagnosis (3D-CAM, CAM-ICU, and NuDESC) and the sub-domains assessed were compared to understand temporal recovery of neurocognitive domains. These data were also analysed to determine the best predictor of PACU delirium. We found the incidence of PACU delirium was 35% (3D-CAM). Individual cognitive domains were affected differently. Few individuals had vigilance deficits (6.5%, n = 10 CAM-ICU) or disorganized thinking (19% CAM-ICU, 27.5% 3D-CAM), in contrast attention deficits were common (72%, n = 144) and most of these patients (89.5%, n = 129) were not sedated (RASS ≥ −2). CAM-ICU (27%) and NuDESC (52.8%) detected fewer cases of PACU delirium compared to 3D-CAM. In conclusion, return of neurocognitive function is a stepwise process; Vigilance and Disorganized Thinking are the earliest cognitive functions to return to baseline and lingering deficits in these domains could indicate an abnormal cognitive recovery. Attention deficits are relatively common at 30 min in the PACU even in individuals who appear to be awake. The 3D CAM is a robust test to check for delirium in the PACU.

Identifying Delirium in Persons With Moderate or Severe Dementia: Review of Challenges and an Illustrative Approach

Delirium and dementia are common causes of cognitive impairment among older adults, which often coexist. Delirium is associated with poor clinical outcomes, and is more frequent and more severe in patients with dementia. Identifying delirium in the presence of dementia, also described as delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), is particularly challenging, as symptoms of delirium such as inattention, cognitive dysfunction, and altered level of consciousness, are also features of dementia. Because DSD is associated with poorer clinical outcomes than dementia alone, detecting delirium is important for reducing morbidity and mortality in this population. We review a number of delirium screening instruments that have shown promise for use in DSD, including the 4-DSD, combined Six Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT) and 4 'A's Test (4AT), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and the combined UB2 and 3D-CAM (UB-CAM). Each has advantages and disadvantages. We then describe the operationalization of a CAM-based approach in a current ECT in dementia project as an example of modifying an existing instrument for patients with moderate to severe dementia. Ultimately, any instrument modified will need to be validated against a standard clinical reference, in order to fully establish its sensitivity and specificity in the moderate to severe dementia population. Future work is greatly needed to advance the challenging area of accurate identification of delirium in moderate or severe dementia.

The inter-relationship between delirium and dementia: the importance of delirium prevention

Delirium and dementia are two frequent causes of cognitive impairment among older adults and have a distinct, complex and interconnected relationship. Delirium is an acute confusional state characterized by inattention, cognitive dysfunction and an altered level of consciousness, whereas dementia is an insidious, chronic and progressive loss of a previously acquired cognitive ability. People with dementia have a higher risk of developing delirium than the general population, and the occurrence of delirium is an independent risk factor for subsequent development of dementia. Furthermore, delirium in individuals with dementia can accelerate the trajectory of the underlying cognitive decline. Delirium prevention strategies can reduce the incidence of delirium and associated adverse outcomes, including falls and functional decline. Therefore, delirium might represent a modifiable risk factor for dementia, and interventions that prevent or minimize delirium might also reduce or prevent long-term cognitive impairment. Additionally, understanding the pathophysiology of delirium and the connection between delirium and dementia might ultimately lead to additional treatments for both conditions. In this Review, we explore mechanisms that might be common to both delirium and dementia by reviewing evidence on shared biomarkers, and we discuss the importance of delirium recognition and prevention in people with dementia.

In this Review, Fong and Inouye explore mechanisms that might be common to both delirium and dementia. They present delirium as a possible modifiable risk factor for dementia and discuss the importance of delirium prevention strategies in reducing this risk.

Delirium and dementia are frequent causes of cognitive impairment among older adults and have a distinct, complex and interconnected relationship.

Delirium prevention strategies have been shown to reduce not only the incidence of delirium but also the incidence of adverse outcomes associated with delirium such as falls and functional decline.

Adverse outcomes associated with delirium, such as the onset of dementia symptoms in individuals with preclinical dementia, and/or the acceleration of cognitive decline in individuals with dementia might also be delayed by the implementation of delirium prevention strategies.

Evidence regarding the association of systemic inflammatory and neuroinflammatory biomarkers with delirium is variable, possibly as a result of co-occurring dementia pathology or disruption of the blood–brain barrier.

Alzheimer disease pathology, even prior to the onset of symptoms, might have an effect on delirium risk, with potential mechanisms including neuroinflammation and gene–protein interactions with the APOE ε4 allele.

Novel strategies, including proteomics, multi-omics, neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation and EEG, are beginning to reveal how changes in cerebral blood flow, spectral power and connectivity can be associated with delirium; further work is needed to expand these findings to patients with delirium superimposed upon dementia.

Delirium

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disorder characterized by a disturbance in attention and cognition. Delirium is underdiagnosed by clinicians, but there are excellent diagnostic tools using history and physical examination that can assist clinicians in making the diagnosis in multiple settings (ie, CAM, CAM-ICU, 3D-CAM, bCAM, 4AT, and UB-CAM). Delirium is caused by underlying medical conditions and is often multifactorial, so a full diagnosis requires a careful assessment for a wide range of underlying conditions. Physical examination has not been well studied in this regard, but still can provide useful clues to the clinician.

Comparative salary-related costs of a brief app-directed delirium identification protocol by hospitalists, nurses, and nursing assistants

BACKGROUND

Systematic screening can improve delirium identification among hospitalized older adults. Prior studies have shown clinicians and health system leaders may believe they do not have the time and resources for assessment. We conducted a comparative salary-related cost analysis of an adaptive delirium identification protocol directed by an iPad app.

METHODS

We recruited 527 older adult medicine patients from an urban academic medical center (n = 269) and a rural community hospital (n = 258). Physicians and nurses completed the two-step Ultra-brief Confusion Assessment Method (UB-CAM) protocol (with or without a skip pattern), while certified nursing assistants completed only the UB-2 ultra-brief screen. The sample included 527 patients (average age 80, 57% women, 35% with dementia). Time required to administer the protocol was collected automatically by the iPad app. Salary-related costs of screening were determined by multiplying the time required by the hourly wage for the three disciplines, as obtained from national and regional published healthcare salary cost data. Cost estimates for entire hospital implementation were also calculated.

RESULTS

Participants were screened on 924 hospital days by 399 clinicians (53 physicians, 236 nurses, 110 CNAs). For the UB-2, CNAs cost per screen was lower than the other clinician types ($0.37 per screen vs. $0.73 for nurses and $2.39 for hospitalists). For the UB-CAM with skip (UB-CAM), costs per protocol were $1.10 for nurses vs. $3.61 for physicians. The annual salary-related costs of hospital-wide implementation of a nurse-based UB-CAM protocol in a medium-sized (300-bed) hospital was $63,015 plus $4356 for initial and annual training.

CONCLUSIONS

CNAs and nurses had the lowest salary-associated costs for app-directed CAM-based delirium screening and identification, respectively. Salary-related annual hospital costs for the most efficient protocols in a medium-sized hospital were less than the annual cost of hiring 1 FTE of the discipline performing the protocols.

Comparison of delirium detection tools in acute care : A rapid review

Background

Delirium is a frequent psychopathological syndrome in geriatric patients. It is sometimes the only symptom of acute illness and bears a high risk for complications. Therefore, feasible assessments are needed for delirium detection.

Objective and methods

Rapid review of available delirium assessments based on a current Medline search and cross-reference check with a special focus on those implemented in acute care hospital settings.

Results

A total of 75 delirium detection tools were identified. Many focused on inattention as well as acute onset and/or fluctuating course of cognitive changes as key features for delirium. A range of assessments are based on the confusion assessment method (CAM) that has been adapted for various clinical settings. The need for a collateral history, time resources and staff training are major challenges in delirium assessment. Latest tests address these through a two-step approach, such as the ultrabrief (UB) CAM or by optional assessment of temporal aspects of cognitive changes (4 As test, 4AT). Most delirium screening assessments are validated for patient interviews, some are suitable for monitoring delirium symptoms over time or diagnosing delirium based on collateral history only.

Conclusion

Besides the CAM the 4AT has become well-established in acute care because of its good psychometric properties and practicability. There are several other instruments extending and improving the possibilities of delirium detection in different clinical settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00391-021-02003-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative Implementation of a Brief App-Directed Protocol for Delirium Identification by Hospitalists, Nurses, and Nursing Assistants : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic screening improves delirium identification among hospitalized older adults. Little data exist on how to implement such screening.

OBJECTIVE

To test implementation of a brief app-directed protocol for delirium identification by physicians, nurses, and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) in real-world practice relative to a research reference standard delirium assessment (RSDA).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large urban academic medical center and small rural community hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

527 general medicine inpatients (mean age, 80 years; 35% with preexisting dementia) and 399 clinicians (53 hospitalists, 236 nurses, and 110 CNAs).

MEASUREMENTS

On 2 study days, enrolled patients had an RSDA. Subsequently, CNAs performed an ultra-brief 2-item screen (UB-2) for delirium, whereas physicians and nurses performed a 2-step protocol consisting of the UB-2 followed in those with a positive screen result by the 3-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for the Confusion Assessment Method.

RESULTS

Delirium was diagnosed in 154 of 924 RSDAs (17%) and in 114 of 527 patients (22%). The completion rate for clinician protocols exceeded 97%. The CNAs administered the UB-2 in a mean of 62 seconds (SD, 51). The 2-step protocols were administered in means of 104 seconds (SD, 99) by nurses and 106 seconds (SD, 105) by physicians. The UB-2 had sensitivities of 88% (95% CI, 72% to 96%), 87% (CI, 73% to 95%), and 82% (CI, 65% to 91%) when administered by CNAs, nurses, and physicians, respectively, with specificities of 64% to 70%. The 2-step protocol had overall accuracy of 89% (CI, 83% to 93%) and 87% (CI, 81% to 91%), with sensitivities of 65% (CI, 48% to 79%) and 63% (CI, 46% to 77%) and specificities of 93% (CI, 88% to 96%) and 91% (CI, 86% to 95%), for nurses and physicians, respectively. Two-step protocol sensitivity for moderate to severe delirium was 78% (CI, 54% to 91%).

LIMITATION

Two sites; limited diversity.

CONCLUSION

An app-directed protocol for delirium identification was feasible, brief, and accurate, and CNAs and nurses performed as well as hospitalists.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Aging.

Clinical practice of Best Practice Nursing Care Standards for Older Adults with Fragility Hip Fracture: A propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Fragility hip fracture (FHF) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. In 2018, Best Practice Nursing Care Standards for Older Adults with Fragility Hip Fracture (NSOF) were released by The International Collaboration of Orthopaedic Nursing (ICON). However, there are only limited clinical data about the application of this standard in clinical practice in China.

AIMS

To determine the clinical practice effect of the NSOF.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed from January 2016 to June 2020. Patients were divided into the standardized nursing care group (SN group) and the conventional nursing care group (CN group) depending on whether they were cared for according to the NSOF criteria. The propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was conducted in this study. The perioperative and follow-up outcomes between the two groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients diagnosed with FHF were included in the study. After a 1:1 matching, 56 cases were identified in the SN group as well as the CN group. Patients in the SN group had significantly shorter preoperative wait times for surgery (17.4 ± 4.6 vs. 24.4 ± 7.6 h, p < 0.05) and a higher proportion of individuals performing exercise within 24 h after surgery (94.6% vs. 66.1%, p < 0.05). Notably, patients in the SN group also had a significantly shorter length of stay than those in the CN group (9.4 ± 3.1 vs. 14.2 ± 5.1 days, p < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the incidence of refracture was significantly lower (3.6% vs. 14.3%, p < 0.05), and the timed up and go mobility index was improved in the SN group compared to the CN group (20.3 ± 1.7 vs. 24.6 ± 2.2 s, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that application of the NSOF resulted in a significant improvement in the treatment of older adults patients with FHF.

Pseudodelirium: Psychiatric Conditions to Consider on the Differential for Delirium

OBJECTIVE

The phenotypes of several psychiatric conditions can very closely resemble delirium; the authors describe such presentations as pseudodelirium. However, because the clinical management of these conditions differs markedly from that of delirium, prompt differentiation is essential. The authors provide an educational review to assist clinicians in identifying and managing psychiatric conditions that may be especially challenging to differentiate from delirium.

METHODS

Based on clinical experience, the authors identified four psychiatric conditions as among the most difficult to differentiate from delirium: disorganized psychosis, Ganser syndrome, delirious mania, and catatonia. An overview of each condition, description of clinical features, differentiation of specific phenotypes from delirium, and review of clinical management are also provided.

RESULTS

The thought and behavioral disorganization in disorganized psychosis can be mistaken for the clouded sensorium and behavioral dysregulation encountered in delirium. The fluctuating alertness and apparent confusion in Ganser syndrome resemble delirium's altered arousal and cognitive features. As its name suggests, delirious mania presents as a mixture of hyperactive delirium and mania; additional features may include psychosis, autonomic activation, and catatonia. Both delirium and catatonia have hypokinetic and hyperkinetic variants, and the two syndromes can also co-occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical presentations of several psychiatric conditions can blend with the phenotype of delirium, at times even co-occurring with it. Detailed evaluation is often required to differentiate such instances of pseudodelirium from delirium proper.

Delirium in older adults

This narrative review provides a broad examination of the most current concepts on the etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of delirium, an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by fluctuating changes in cognition and consciousness. With the interaction of underlying vulnerability and severity of acute insults, delirium can occur at any age but is particularly frequent in hospitalized older adults. Delirium is also associated with numerous adverse outcomes, including functional impairment, cognitive decline, increased healthcare costs, and death. Its diagnosis is based on clinical and cognitive assessments, preferably following systematized detection instruments, such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Delirium and its consequences are most effectively fought using multicomponent preventive interventions, like those proposed by the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP). When prevention fails, delirium management is primarily based on the identification and reversal of precipitating factors and the non-pharmacological control of delirium symptoms. Pharmacological interventions in delirium should be restricted to cases of dangerous agitation or severe psychotic symptoms.