Delirium, sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit: a multinational, two-part survey among intensivists

Pain management of adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care units: A survey with free text responses

BACKGROUND

Pain management of sedated and ventilated patients in intensive care units lacks consistency.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate nurses' training, governance, practices, knowledge and attitudes relating to pain management in consideration of published guidelines and explore nurses' perspectives.

METHODS

A survey design, using an online questionnaire with free text responses, was employed. Quantitative and qualitative data from nurses working across different hospitals were collated and saved on Qualtrics platform. Quantitative data were analysed non-parametrically and narrative responses thematically. CROSS and SRQR reporting guidelines were adhered to.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics, training, governance, clinical practice, knowledge, and attitudes.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

108 nurses participated with ninety-two completed surveys analysed. Analgesia was used to complete nursing tasks regardless of comfort needs (n = 49, 53.3 %). Changes in vital signs prompted opioid administration (n = 48, 52.1 %). Choice of analgesia depended on doctor's preference (n = 63, 68.5 %). Non-opioid therapy was administered before opioids (n = 42, 45.7 %). Sedatives were used to alleviate agitation(n = 50,54.3 %). No statistically significant difference in nurses' knowledge existed between hospitals. Weak positive relationship: r = [0.081], p = [0.441] between "knowledge scores" and "years of ICU experience" and weak negative relationship r = [-0.119], p = [0.260] between "knowledge scores" and "hours of clinical practice" was detected. Lack of training, resources, policies, high patient acuity and casual employment were acknowledged barriers to pain management. Two overarching themes emerged from narrative responses: "Pain assessment, where is it?" And "Priorities of critical illness."

CONCLUSION

The study uncovered pain management situation and examined nurses' demographics, training, governance, practices, knowledge and attitudes. Narrative responses highlighted barriers to pain management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Health organisations should provide education, institute governance and develop policies to inform pain management. Nurses' role encompasses updating knowledge, adhering to interventions and overcoming biases. This subsequently manifests as improvement in patient outcomes.

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023.

SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

METHODS

Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers.

RESULTS

Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Enhancing European Management of Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium: A Multinational, Prospective, Interventional Before-After Trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a structured educational intervention on the implementation of guideline-recommended pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) assessment.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multinational, interventional before-after trial conducted at 12 intensive care units from 10 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Intensive care units underwent a 6-week structured educational program, comprising online lectures, instructional videos, educational handouts, and bedside teaching. Patient-level PAD assessment data were collected in three 1-day point-prevalence assessments before (T1), 6 weeks after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the educational program.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients were included. The rate of patients who received all three PAD assessments changed from 55% (107/195) at T1 to 53% (68/129) at T2, but increased to 73% (77/106) at T3 (p = 0.003). The delirium screening rate increased from 64% (124/195) at T1 to 65% (84/129) at T2 and 77% (82/106) at T3 (p = 0.041). The pain assessment rate increased from 87% (170/195) at T1 to 92% (119/129) at T2 and 98% (104/106) at T3 (p = 0.005). The rate of sedation assessment showed no signficiant change. The proportion of patients who received nonpharmacological delirium prevention measures increased from 58% (114/195) at T1 to 80% (103/129) at T2 and 91% (96/106) at T3 (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that at T3, patients were more likely to receive a delirium assessment (odds ratio [OR] 2.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.206-3.790; p = 0.009), sedation assessment (OR 4.131, 95% CI 1.372-12.438; p = 0.012), or all three PAD assessments (OR 2.295, 95% CI 1.349-3.903; p = 0.002) compared with T1.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine care, many patients were not assessed for PAD. Assessment rates increased significantly 1 year after the intervention. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03553719.

Health care professionals' experiences of pain management in the intensive care unit: a qualitative study

Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in the critical care setting, the prevalence of acute pain remains high. Inadequate pain management is associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced capacity for rehabilitation and long-term psychological sequelae. This study aimed to describe the experiences of pain management from healthcare professionals working in intensive care units. Healthcare professionals were recruited from intensive care units in London, UK using a purposive sampling technique. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis technique. Thirty participants were recruited from eight diverse intensive care units. Five themes were identified. First, there was a lack of consensus in pain assessment in the ICU where nursing staff described more knowledge and confidence of validated pain measures than physicians, and concerns over validity and usability were raised. Second, there was a universal perception of resource availability impacting the quality of pain management including high clinical workload, staff turnover and availability of certain pain management techniques. Third, acknowledgement of the importance of pain management was highest in those with experience of interacting with critical care survivors. Fourth, participants described their own emotional reaction to managing those in pain which influenced their learning. Finally, there was a perception that, due to the complexity of the intensive care unit population, pain was de-prioritised and there were conflicting views as to whether standardised analgosedation algorithms were useful. This study provides evidence to suggest interdisciplinary training, collaboratively designed decision-making tools, prioritisation initiatives and research priorities are areas that could be targeted to improve pain management in critical care.

Challenges of the Implementation of a Delirium Rate Scale in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Approach

INTRODUCTION

Delirium in the pediatric population admitted to intensive care is a worrying reality due to its potential complications and the increase in associated costs. This study aims to explore the experiences of nursing staff of a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit after 15 months of starting a program to fight against childhood delirium in their unit.

METHODOLOGY

A qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) Key Informants. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) and the consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) were followed as quality measures for the study. Seven nurses (33% of the eligible population) from the PICU of a referral hospital were interviewed. Text transcripts were analyzed using the Interpretative Description and Qualitative Content Analysis method.

RESULTS

The interviewees indicated not identifying delirium as an important reality; with great deficiencies observed in what is related to the identification of delirium; identifying CAPD as an unreliable tool in their unit; and not sharing therapeutic objectives in this respect with the medical staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The nursing staff presented a series of negative attitudes towards the phenomena of delirium in their unit, with gaps in training and in clinical management, and the diagnostic tool used, and did not see it as a priority objective of the unit, partly due to a resistance to change and a latent interprofessional communication conflict. A change at the formative, attitudinal, and relational levels is urgently needed for the success of the program and the well-being of the children in the unit.

A protocol of an international validation study to assess the clinical accuracy of the eDIS-ICU delirium screening tool

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common, yet underdiagnosed neuropsychiatric complication of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Delirium can be difficult to diagnose, with gold standard assessments by a trained specialist being impractical and rarely performed. To address this, various tools have been developed, enabling bedside clinicians to assess for delirium efficiently and accurately. However, the performance of these tools varies depending on factors including the assessor's training. To address the shortcomings of current tools, electronic tools have been developed.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims of this validation study are to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and generalisability of a recently developed and pilot-tested electronic delirium screening tool (eDIS-ICU) and compare diagnostic concordance, sensitivity, and specificity between eDIS-ICU, Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5th edition (DSM-V) gold standard in diverse ICU settings.

METHODS

Seven hundred participants will be recruited across five sites in three countries. Participants will complete three assessments (eDIS-ICU, CAM-ICU, and DSM-V) twice within one 24-h period. At each time point, assessments will be completed within one hour. Assessments will be administered by three different people at any given time point, with the assessment order and assessor for eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU randomly allocated. Assessors will be blinded to previous and concurrent assessment results.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is comparing diagnostic sensitivity of eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU against the DSM-V.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This protocol describes a definitive validation study of an electronic diagnostic tool to assess for delirium in the ICU. Delirium remains a common and difficult challenge in the ICU and is linked with multiple neurocognitive sequelae. Various challenges to routine assessment mean many cases are still unrecognised or misdiagnosed. An improved ability for bedside clinicians to screen for delirium accurately and efficiently will support earlier diagnosis, identification of underlying cause(s) and timely treatments, and ultimately improved patient outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 8th February 2022 (ACTRN12622000220763).

Longitudinal trajectories of sedation level and clinical outcomes in patients who are mechanically ventilated based on a group-based trajectory model: a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal and observational study in Korea

OBJECTIVES

Changes in sedation levels over a long time in patients who are mechanically ventilated are unknown. Therefore, we investigated the long-term sedation levels of these patients by classifying them into different longitudinal patterns.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal, and observational study.

SETTING

Twenty intensive care units (ICUs) spanning several medical institutions in Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who received mechanical ventilation and sedatives in ICU within 48 hours of admission between April 2020 and July 2021.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary objective of this study was to identify the pattern of sedation practice. Additionally, we analysed the associations of trajectory groups with clinical outcomes as the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Sedation depth was monitored using Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). A group-based trajectory model was used to classify 631 patients into four trajectories based on sedation depth: persistent suboptimal (13.2%, RASS ≤ -3 throughout the first 30 days), delayed lightening (13.9%, RASS ≥ -2 after the first 15 days), early lightening (38.4%, RASS ≥ -2 after the first 7 days) and persistent optimal (34.6%, RASS ≥ -2 during the first 30 days). 'Persistent suboptimal' trajectory was associated with delayed extubation (HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.32, p<0.001), longer ICU stay (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51, p<0.001) and hospital mortality (HR: 13.62, 95% CI: 5.99 to 30.95, p<0.001) compared with 'persistent optimal'. The 'delayed lightening' and 'early lightening' trajectories showed lower extubation probability (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.41, p<0.001; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.87, p<0.001, respectively) and ICU discharge (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.59, p<0.001 and HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.97, p=0.024) compared with 'persistently optimal'.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the four trajectories, 'persistent suboptimal' trajectory was associated with higher mortality.

The Profile of Early Sedation Depth and Clinical Outcomes of Mechanically Ventilated Patients in Korea

BACKGROUND

Current international guidelines recommend against deep sedation as it is associated with worse outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in Korea the prevalence of deep sedation and its impact on patients in the ICU are not well known.

METHODS

From April 2020 to July 2021, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, noninterventional cohort study was performed in 20 Korean ICUs. Sedation depth extent was divided into light and deep using a mean Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale value within the first 48 hours. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariables; the outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 631 patients (418 [66.2%] and 213 [33.8%] in the deep and light sedation groups, respectively) were included. Mortality rates were 14.1% and 8.4% in the deep and light sedation groups (P = 0.039), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that time to extubation (P < 0.001), ICU length of stay (P = 0.005), and death (P = 0.041) differed between the groups. After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation was only associated with delayed time to extubation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.80; P < 0.001). In the matched cohort, deep sedation remained significantly associated with delayed time to extubation (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83; P < 0.001) but was not associated with ICU length of stay (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.500) and in-hospital mortality (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.65-2.17; P = 0.582).

CONCLUSION

In many Korean ICUs, early deep sedation was highly prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and was associated with delayed extubation, but not prolonged ICU stay or in-hospital death.

[Delirium in the context of intensive care medicine-Part 2: diagnosis, prevention and treatment]

Despite the high prevalence and the enormous medical and health economic impact, delirium syndromes are often underdiagnosed, which is mainly attributable to the high frequency of hypoactive delirium and to the frequently subtle and fluctuating psychopathology in the initial phase of delirium. These aspects also justify the need for a consequent and continuous application of standardized screening tools to detect delirium as early as possible. A multidimensional, nonpharmacological prevention of delirium is effective and still underutilized in the clinical practice. So far, there are no consensus recommendations regarding the pharmacological prevention of delirium. From a therapeutic perspective a causal approach is prioritized. Pharmacological treatment of delirium can only be considered under strict observance of specific indicators. When treating non-withdrawal-related delirium benzodiazepines should be avoided.

The Usefulness of Quantitative Electroencephalography in Diagnosis and Severity Evaluation of Delirium: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Incontrovertible disease markers are absent in delirium. This study investigated the usefulness of quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) in diagnosing delirium.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study reviewed medical records and qEEG data of 69 age/sex-matched patients (delirium group, n=30; control group, n=39). The first minute of artifact-free EEG data with eyes closed was selected. Nineteen electrodes' sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with delirium rating scale-revised-98 were analyzed.

RESULTS

On comparing the means of absolute power by frontal, central, and posterior regions, the delta and theta powers showed significant differences (p<0.001) in all regions, and the magnitude of the absolute power was higher in the delirium group than in the control group; only the posterior region showed a significant (p<0.001) difference in beta power. The spectral power of theta at the frontal region (area under the curve [AUC]=0.84) and theta at the central and posterior regions (AUC=0.83) showed 90% sensitivity and 79% specificity, respectively, in differentiating delirious patients and controls. The beta power of the central region showed a significant negative correlation with delirium severity (R=-0.457, p=0.011).

CONCLUSION

Power spectrum analysis of qEEG showed high accuracy in screening delirium among patients. The study suggests qEEG as a potential aid in diagnosing delirium.

Sedation, sleep-promotion, and non-verbal and verbal communication techniques in critically ill intubated or tracheostomized patients: results of a survey

BACKGROUND

The aim of this survey was to describe, on a patient basis, the current practice of sedation, pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic measures to promote sleep and facilitation of communication in critically ill patients oro-tracheally intubated or tracheostomized.

METHODS

Cross-sectional online-survey evaluating sedation, sleep management and communication in oro-tracheally intubated (IP) or tracheostomized (TP) patients in intensive care units on a single point.

RESULTS

Eighty-one intensive care units including 447 patients (IP: n = 320, TP: n = 127) participated. A score of ≤ -2 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was prevalent in 58.2% (IP 70.7% vs. TP 26.8%). RASS -1/0 was present in 32.2% (IP 25.9% vs. TP 55.1%) of subjects. Propofol and alpha-2-agonist were the predominant sedatives used while benzodiazepines were applied in only 12.1% of patients. For sleep management, ear plugs and sleeping masks were rarely used (< 7%). In half of the participating intensive care units a technique for phonation was used in the tracheostomized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rate of moderate and deep sedation appears high, particularly in oro-tracheally intubated patients. There is no uniform sleep management and ear plugs and sleeping masks are only rarely applied. The application of phonation techniques in tracheostomized patients during assisted breathing is low. More efforts should be directed towards improved guideline implementation. The enhancement of sleep promotion and communication techniques in non-verbal critically ill patients may be a focus of future guideline development.

What are the perceptions of intensive care staff about their sedation practices when caring for a mechanically ventilated patient?: A systematic mixed-methods review

Background

Sedation is used alongside mechanical ventilation for patients in intensive care units internationally; its use is complex and multifaceted. Existing evidence shows that the ways health care professionals use sedation significantly impacts patient outcomes, including how long someone spends on a ventilator, length of stay in intensive care and recovery.

Objective

Our study aimed to systematically review and synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence about how intensive care staff perceive sedation practices when looking after sedated and mechanically ventilated patients.

Design

We performed a systematic integrated mixed-methods literature review collecting qualitative and quantitative studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they were published from 2009 and focused on perceptions of staff working in general adult intensive care units and caring for mechanically ventilated patients.

Settings

General adult intensive care units.

Participants

Health care professionals working in adult intensive care units.

Methods

Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken by SV. Screening for inclusion and quality issues were reviewed by TR, TM and JS. The following databases: Embase, BNI, PubMed, Scopus, AMED, CINAHL, ASSIA, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. We used an assessment tool called the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The studies were assessed and analysed by transforming the qualitative and quantitative data into 'text-in-context' statements. The statements were then synthesized using thematic analysis.

Results

Eighteen studies were included from ten countries, fourteen quantitative and four qualitative. Three overarching themes were identified: 'Variation in Decision Making', 'Challenges in Decision Making' and 'Thinking Outside the Box'. Existing studies revealed that there is considerable variation in most aspects of perceived sedation practice. Staff face challenges with interprofessional collaboration and sedation practice, and there are barriers to using sedation protocols and light sedation. There is also evidence that there is a need for health care professionals to develop coping strategies to help them facilitate lighter sedation.

Conclusions

A review of a decade of evidence shows that variation in decision making and challenges in decision making should be addressed to improve the care of the sedated and ventilated patient, and improve the caregiving experience for staff. Staff continue to require support with sedation practice, especially in light sedation. Research should now focus on how to help staff cope with looking after lightly sedated patients. In addition, future studies should focus on exploring sedation practices using qualitative methods as there is a dearth of qualitative evidence.

Tweetable abstract

Staff perceive a range of complex challenges that explain some of the variability in sedation practice for the ventilated patient in ICU.

Sedation, analgesia, and delirium management in Portugal: a survey and point prevalence study

OBJECTIVE

To establish current Portuguese critical care practices regarding analgesia, sedation, and delirium based on a comparison between the activities reported and daily clinical practice.

METHODS

A national survey was conducted among physicians invited to report their practice toward analgesia, sedation, and delirium in intensive care units. A point prevalence study was performed to analyze daily practices.

RESULTS

A total of 117 physicians answered the survey, and 192 patients were included in the point prevalence study. Survey and point prevalence studies reflect a high sedation assessment (92%; 88.5%), with the Richmond Agitated Sedation Scale being the most reported and used scale (41.7%; 58.2%) and propofol being the most reported and used medication (91.4%; 58.6%). Midazolam prescribing was reported by 68.4% of responders, but a point prevalence study revealed a use of 27.6%.Although 46.4% of responders reported oversedation, this was actually documented in 32% of the patients. The survey reports the daily assessment of pain (92%) using standardized scales (71%). The same was identified in the point prevalence study, with 91.1% of analgesia assessment mainly with the Behavioral Pain Scale. In the survey, opioids were reported as the first analgesic. In clinical practice, acetaminophen was the first option (34.6%), followed by opioids. Delirium assessment was reported by 70% of physicians but was performed in less than 10% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The results from the survey did not accurately reflect the common practices in Portuguese intensive care units, as reported in the point prevalence study. Efforts should be made specifically to avoid oversedation and to promote delirium assessment.

Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review

Background

Delirium is a common disorder affecting around 31% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium assessment scores such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) are time-consuming, they cannot differentiate between different types of delirium and their etiologies, and they may have low sensitivities in the clinical setting. While today, electroencephalography (EEG) is increasingly being applied to delirious patients in the ICU, a lack of clear cut EEG signs, leads to inconsistent assessments.

Methods

We therefore conducted a scoping review on EEG findings in delirium. One thousand two hundred thirty-six articles identified through database search on PubMed and Embase were reviewed. Finally, 33 original articles were included in the synthesis.

Results

EEG seems to offer manifold possibilities in diagnosing delirium. All 33 studies showed a certain degree of qualitative or quantitative EEG alterations in delirium. Thus, normal routine (rEEG) and continuous EEG (cEEG) make presence of delirium very unlikely. All 33 studies used different research protocols to at least some extent. These include differences in time points, duration, conditions, and recording methods of EEG, as well as different patient populations, and diagnostic methods for delirium. Thus, a quantitative synthesis and common recommendations are so far elusive.

Conclusion

Future studies should compare the different methods of EEG recording and evaluation to identify robust parameters for everyday use. Evidence for quantitative bi-electrode delirium detection based on increased relative delta power and decreased beta power is growing and should be further pursued. Additionally, EEG studies on the evolution of a delirium including patient outcomes are needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w.

Delirium on stroke units: a prospective, multicentric quality-improvement project

Background

Post-stroke delirium (POD) in patients on stroke units (SU) is associated with an increased risk for complications and poorer clinical outcome. The objective was to reduce the severity of POD by implementing an interprofessional delirium-management.

Methods

Multicentric quality-improvement project on five SU implementing a delirium-management with pre/post-comparison. Primary outcome was severity of POD, assessed with the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC). Secondary outcome parameters were POD incidence, duration, modified Rankin Scale (mRS), length of stay in SU and hospital, mortality, and others.

Results

Out of a total of 799 patients, 59.4% (n = 475) could be included with 9.5% (n = 45) being delirious. Implementation of a delirium-management led to reduced POD severity; Nu-DESC median: pre: 3.5 (interquartile range 2.6–4.7) vs. post 3.0 (2.2–4.0), albeit not significant (p = 0.154). Other outcome parameters were not meaningful different. In the post-period, delirium-management could be delivered to 75% (n = 18) of delirious patients, and only 24 (53.3%) of delirious patients required pharmacological treatments. Patients with a more severe stroke and POD remained on their disability levels, compared to similar affected, non-delirious patients who improved.

Conclusions

Implementation of delirium-management on SU is feasible and can be delivered to most patients, but with limited effects. Nursing interventions as first choice could be delivered to the majority of patients, and only the half required pharmacological treatments. Delirium-management may lead to reduced severity of POD but had only partial effects on duration of POD or length of stay. POD hampers rehabilitation, especially in patients with more severe stroke.

Registry

DRKS, DRKS00021436. Registered 04/17/2020, www.drks.de/DRKS00021436.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11000-6.

Current status of delirium assessment tools in the intensive care unit: a prospective multicenter observational survey

Delirium is a critical challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU) or high care unit (HCU) setting and is associated with poor outcomes. There is not much literature on how many patients in this setting are assessed for delirium and what tools are used. This study investigated the status of delirium assessment tools of patients in the ICU/HCU. We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study among 20 institutions. Data for patients who were admitted to and discharged from the ICU/HCU during a 1-month study period were collected from each institution using a survey sheet. The primary outcome was the usage rate of delirium assessment tools on an institution- and patient-basis. Secondary outcomes were the delirium prevalence assessed by each institution’s assessment tool, comparison of delirium prevalence between delirium assessment tools, delirium prevalence at the end of ICH/HCU stay, and the relationship between potential factors related to delirium and the development of delirium. Result showed that 95% of institutions used the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) to assess delirium in their ICU/HCU, and the remaining one used another assessment scale. The usage rate (at least once during the ICU/HCU stay) of the ICDSC and the CAM-ICU among individual patients were 64.5% and 25.1%, and only 8.2% of enrolled patients were not assessed by any delirium assessment tool. The prevalence of delirium during ICU/HCU stay was 17.9%, and the prevalence of delirium at the end of the ICU/HCU stay was 5.9%. In conclusion, all institutions used delirium assessment tools in the ICU/HCU, and most patients received delirium assessment. The prevalence of delirium was 17.9%, and two-thirds of patients had recovered at discharge from ICU/HCU.

Trial registration number: UMIN000037834.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.

Methods

This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.

Conclusions

Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-00985-y.

The impact of ABCDE bundle implementation on patient outcomes: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The ABCDE bundle is a set of evidence-based practices to systematically reduce the risks of sedation, delirium, and immobility in intensive care patients. Implementing the bundle improves clinical outcome.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between patient outcomes and compliance with bundle components ABC (analgosedation algorithms), D (delirium protocol), and E (early mobilization protocol).

DESIGN

A Spanish multicentre cohort study of adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ≥48 h until extubation.

METHODS

The primary outcome was pain level, cooperation to permit Medical Research Council Scale administration, patient days of delirium, and mobility. The secondary outcome was cumulative drug dosing by IMV days. Tertiary outcomes (ICU days, IMV days, bed rest days, ICU mortality, ICUAW) and independent variables (analgosedation, delirium, early mobilization protocols) were also studied.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 605 patients in 80 ICUs and 5214 patient days with IMV. Two-thirds of the ICUs studied applied no protocols. Pain was not assessed on 83.6% of patient days. Patient cooperation made scale administration feasible on 20.7% of days. Delirium and immobility were found on 4.2% and 69.9% of days, respectively. Patients had shorter stays in ICUs with bundle protocols and fewer days of IMV in ICUs with delirium and mobilization bundle components (P = 0.006 and P = 0.03, respectively). Analgosedation protocols were associated with more opioid dosing (P = 0.02), and delirium and early mobilization protocols with more propofol (P = 0.001), dexmedetomidine (P = 0.001), and lower benzodiazepine dosing (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation rate of ABCDE bundle components was very low in our Spanish setting, but when implemented, patients had a shorter ICU stay, more analgesia dosing, and lighter sedation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Applying some but not all the bundle components, there is increased analgesia and light sedation drug use, decreased benzodiazepines, and increased patient cooperation and mobility, resulting in a shorter ICU stay and fewer days of IMV.

Incidence and predictors of delirium on the intensive care unit after acute myocardial infarction, insight from a retrospective registry

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the incidence and potential risk factors for delirium after myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication on intensive care units. Data on incidence and especially on predictors of delirium in patients after acute MI are rare.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all patients hospitalized for MI treated with coronary angiography in an university hospital in 2018 were included and analyzed. Onset of delirium within the first 5 days after MI was attributed to the MI and was defined by a Nursing Delirium screening scale (NuDesc) ≥2. This score is taken as part of daily care in every patient on intensive care unit three times a day by especially trained nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 624 patients with MI (age 68.5 ± 13.2 years, ST-elevation MI 41.6%, hospital mortality 3.2%) were included in the study. Delirium was detected in 10.9% of all patients. In the subgroup of patients with a stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hr (n = 229), delirium was detected in 29.7%. Hospital and ICU stay were significantly longer in patients with delirium (p < .001). Delirium was an independent predictor of prolonged ICU-stay. Independent predictors of delirium were age, dementia, alcohol abuse, cardiac arrest, hypotension, and leucocytosis. Infarct size or presentation with ST-elevation were not associated with incidence of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Development of delirium is frequent after acute MI and prolongs hospitalization. Incidence of delirium is associated with clinical instability, preexisting comorbidity, and age rather than MI type or size.

How We Prevent and Treat Delirium in the ICU

Delirium is a serious and complex problem facing critically ill patients, their families, and the health care system. When delirium develops, it is associated with prolonged hospital stays, increased costs, and long-term cognitive impairment in many patients. This article uses a clinical case to discuss our approach to delirium prevention and treatment in the ICU. We believe that an effective strategy to combat delirium requires implementation and adherence to a pain and sedation protocol as part of bundled care, use of a validated tool to detect delirium when present, and a focus on nonpharmacologic care strategies, including reorientation, early mobility, and incorporating family into care when possible. At present, the evidence does not support the routine administration of medications to prevent or treat delirium. A pharmacologic approach may be needed for agitated delirium, and we discuss our evaluation of the evidence for and against particular medications. Although delirium can be a distressing problem, there is evidence that it can be addressed through careful attention to prevention, detection, and minimizing the long-term impact on patients and their families.

[Pitfalls in the diagnosis of delirium]

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of delirium is challenging and requires precise definitions in both clinical routine and in studies.

AIM

To point out various pitfalls in the clinical diagnosis of delirium and discuss solutions.

METHODS

Review.

RESULTS

Common problems include (a) clinical judgment of staff vs. the use of valid assessment tools, (b) different lists of criteria for delirium that may consider the symptoms of delirium differently and thus lead to inclusion or exclusion of patients, (c) different assessment tools that test the symptoms of delirium to different extents and thus have different accuracy, (d) patients with limited communication abilities, such as aphasia, where common tests often fail and alternative procedures may be more effective; (e) the decision whether to test delirium once, twice, three times, or more frequently in 24 h has consequences on the incidence and duration of delirium, (f) the end of delirium, often defined retrospectively as a delirium-free interval or prospectively as the time of transfer or occurrence of an exclusion criterion, can lead to considerable measurement inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not all problems can be definitively answered, transparent definition, performance, and documentation of diagnostic procedures are recommended.

The effects of anaesthetics and sedatives on brain inflammation

Microglia are involved in many dynamic processes in the central nervous system (CNS) including the development of inflammatory processes and neuromodulation. Several sedative, analgesic or anaesthetic drugs, such as opioids, ∝2-adrenergic agonists, ketamine, benzodiazepines and propofol can cause both neuroprotective and harmful effects on the brain. The purpose of this review is to present the main findings on the use of these drugs and the mechanisms involved in microglial activation. Alpha 2-adrenergic agonists, propofol and benzodiazepines have several pro- or anti-inflammatory effects on microglia. Long-term use of benzodiazepines and propofol causes neuroapoptotic effects and α2-adrenergic agonists may attenuate these effects. Conversely, morphine and fentanyl may have proinflammatory effects, causing behavioural changes in patients and changes in cell viability in vitro. Conversely, chronic administration of morphine induces CCL5 chemokine expression in microglial cells that promotes their survival.

Pain assessment of the adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care setting: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pain is frequently encountered in the intensive care setting. Given the impact of pain assessment on patient outcomes and length of hospital stay, studies have been conducted to validate tools, establish guidelines and cast light on practices relating to pain assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of the evidence around pain assessment practices in adult patients who cannot self-report pain in the intensive care setting and summarise the findings from a heterogenous body of evidence to aid in the planning and the conduct of future research and management of patient care. The specific patient cohort studied was the sedated/ ventilated patient within the intensive care setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review protocol utilised the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping review checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

METHODS

The review comprised of five phases: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Databases were systematically searched from January to April 2020. Databases included were Scopus, Web of Science, Medline via Ovid, CINAHL COMPLETE via EBSCO host, Health Source and PUBMED. Limits were applied on dates (2000 to current), language (English), subject (human) and age (adult). Key words used were "pain", "assessment", "measurement", "tools", "instruments", "practices", "sedated", "ventilated", "adult". A hand search technique was used to search citations within articles. Database alerts were set to apprise the availability of research articles pertaining to pain assessment practices in the intensive care setting.

RESULTS

The review uncovered literature categorised under five general themes: behaviour pain assessment tools, pain assessment guidelines, position statements and quality improvement projects, enablers and barriers to pain assessment, and evidence appertaining to actual practices. Behaviour pain assessment tools are the benchmark for pain assessment of sedated and ventilated patients. The reliability and validity of physiologic parameters to assess pain is yet to be determined. Issues of compliance with pain assessment guidelines and tools exist and impact on practices. In some countries like Australia, there is a dearth of information regarding the prevalence and characteristics of patients receiving analgesia, type of analgesia used, pain assessment practices and the process of recording pain management. In general, pain assessment varies across different intensive care settings and lacks consistency.

CONCLUSION

Research on pain assessment practices requires further investigation to explore the causative mechanisms that contribute to poor compliance with established pain management guidelines. The protocol of this review was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/25a6) Tweetable abstract: Pain assessment in intensive care settings lacks consistency. New information is needed to understand the causative mechanisms underpinning poor compliance with guidelines.

Community implementation of the 3 Wishes Project: an observational study of a compassionate end-of-life care initiative for critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

The 3 Wishes Project (3WP) promotes a personalized dying experience by eliciting and facilitating individualized terminal wishes for patients, families and the clinicians caring for them. We aimed to evaluate the adaptability of the 3WP to a community intensive care unit (ICU), and to describe the patients cared for with this palliative approach, as well as local implementation strategies.

METHODS

The 3WP was implemented in a 15-bed community hospital ICU in southern Ontario from 2017 to 2019. In this observational, descriptive study, we invited adult patients (≥ 18 yr) whose risk of death was deemed to be 95% or greater by the attending physician, or patients undergoing withdrawal of life-support to participate. We abstracted patient data from medical records, as well as the type, timing and cost of each wish, which person or service made and facilitated each wish, and if and why wishes were completed or not. We summarized data both narratively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

The 3WP helped to realize 479 (99.2%) of 483 terminal wishes for 101 dying patients. This initiative was introduced as an interprofessional intervention and championed by nursing staff who were responsible for most patient enrolment and wish facilitation. Wishes included humanizing the ICU environment for the patient with belongings and blankets, musical performances, smudging and bathing ceremonies, and keepsakes. The cost was $5.39 per patient (standard deviation $22.40), with 430 (89.8%) wishes incurring no cost. Wishes made directly by patients accounted for 30 (6.2%) of wishes; those from family members and ICU staff accounted for 236 (48.9%) and 238 (49.3%) of wishes, respectively. The program comforted patients and their loved ones, motivating clinicians to sustain this end-of-life intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We documented successful implementation of the 3WP in a community hospital, showing program adaptability and uptake outside of academic centres at relatively low cost. The lack of strict protocolization and personalized design of this intervention underscores its inherent flexibility, with potential to promote individualized end-of-life care in nonacademic hospital wards, homes or hospice.

Screening for delirium in the intensive care unit using eDIS-ICU - A purpose-designed app: A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Delirium, a common complication of an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, is inconsistently diagnosed by clinicians. Current screening tools require specialist expertise and/or training. Some are time-consuming to administer, and reliability in routine clinical practice is questionable. An innovative app designed to enable efficient and sensitive screening for delirium without specialist training (eDIS-ICU) has recently been described. This pilot study compared the eDIS-ICU against the reference standard expert assessment using DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) criteria and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU).

METHODS

In this prospective, single-centre pilot study, a convenience sample of 29 ICU patients were recruited at a tertiary referral hospital between November 2018 and August 2019. After obtaining written consent, demographic and clinical data were collected, and the patients were screened for delirium using eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU by two clinician researchers in random order. The patients were also assessed for presence of delirium independently by an expert clinician using a structured interview to diagnose as per DSM-V criteria. The results of screening and diagnosis were tabulated to allow comparison of screening tools against diagnosis; sensitivity and specificity of the tools were calculated.

RESULTS

Seven participants were diagnosed with delirium as per DSM-V criteria. The eDIS-ICU tool correctly identified six of these participants compared with two identified by CAM-ICU. The sensitivity of the eDIS-ICU tool was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.5-100.0) compared with 29% (95% CI = 5.1-69.7) for CAM-ICU (p < 0.05), and the specificity was 73% (95% CI = 81.5-100.0) versus 96% (95% CI = 75.1-99.8), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The simple and novel eDIS-ICU delirium screening tool was noninferior to the CAM-ICU in detecting delirium as per DSM-V criteria. A definitive validation study is warranted.

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.

METHODS

We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.

RESULTS

We enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

The 4 'A's test for detecting delirium in acute medical patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 'A's test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test - 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost.

METHODS

Phase 1 - the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 - the 4AT's diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0-14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0-6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067.

LIMITATIONS

Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

Enhanced Recovery after Intensive Care (ERIC): study protocol for a German stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a critical care telehealth program on process quality and functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Survival after critical illness has noticeably improved over the last decades due to advances in critical care medicine. Besides, there is an increasing number of elderly patients with chronic diseases being treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). More than half of the survivors of critical illness suffer from medium-term or long-term cognitive, psychological and/or physical impairments after ICU discharge, which is recognised as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). There are evidence-based and consensus-based quality indicators (QIs) in intensive care medicine, which have a positive influence on patients' long-term outcomes if adhered to.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol of a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled, quality improvement trial is presented. During 3 predefined steps, 12 academic hospitals in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, are randomly selected to move in a one-way crossover from the control to the intervention condition. After a multifactorial training programme on QIs and clinical outcomes for site personnel, ICUs will receive an adapted, interprofessional protocol for a complex telehealth intervention comprising of daily telemedical rounds at ICU. The targeted sample size is 1431 patients. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention on the adherence to eight QIs daily measured during the patient's ICU stay, compared with standard of care. Furthermore, the impact on long-term recovery such as PICS-related, patient-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, mental health, clinical assessments of cognition and physical function, all-cause mortality and cost-effectiveness 3 and 6 months after ICU discharge will be evaluated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany (EA1/006/18). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (www.eric-projekt.net).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03671447).

Effects of pain, sedation and delirium monitoring on clinical and economic outcome: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Significant improvements in clinical outcome can be achieved by implementing effective strategies to optimise pain management, reduce sedative exposure, and prevent and treat delirium in ICU patients. One important strategy is the monitoring of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD bundle). We hypothesised that there is no sufficient financial benefit to implement a monitoring strategy in a Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)-based reimbursement system, therefore we expected better clinical and decreased economic outcome for monitored patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study using routinely collected data. We used univariate and multiple linear analysis, machine-learning analysis and a novel correlation statistic (maximal information coefficient) to explore the association between monitoring adherence and resulting clinical and economic outcome. For univariate analysis we split patients in an adherence achieved and an adherence non-achieved group.

RESULTS

In total 1,323 adult patients from two campuses of a German tertiary medical centre, who spent at least one day in the ICU between admission and discharge between 1. January 2016 and 31. December 2016. Adherence to PAD monitoring was associated with shorter hospital LoS (e.g. pain monitoring 13 vs. 10 days; p<0.001), ICU LoS, duration of mechanical ventilation shown by univariate analysis. Despite the improved clinical outcome, adherence to PAD elements was associated with a decreased case mix per day and profit per day shown by univariate analysis. Multiple linear analysis did not confirm these results. PAD monitoring is important for clinical as well as economic outcome and predicted case mix better than severity of illness shown by machine learning analysis.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to PAD bundles is also important for clinical as well as economic outcome. It is associated with improved clinical and worse economic outcome in comparison to non-adherence in univariate analysis but not confirmed by multiple linear analysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02265263, Registered 15 October 2014.

Pain management protocol implementation and opioid consumption in critical care: an interrupted time series analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of an opioid-sparing pain management protocol on overall opioid consumption and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-center, quasi-experimental, retrospective, before and after cohort study. We used an interrupted time series to analyze changes in the levels and trends of the utilization of different analgesics. We used bivariate comparisons in the before and after cohorts as well as logistic regression and quantile regression for adjusted estimates.

RESULTS

We included 988 patients in the preintervention period and 1,838 in the postintervention period. Fentanyl consumption was slightly increasing before the intervention (β = 16; 95%CI 7 - 25; p = 0.002) but substantially decreased in level with the intervention (β = - 128; 95%CI -195 - -62; p = 0.001) and then progressively decreased (β = - 24; 95%CI -35 - -13; p < 0.001). There was an increasing trend in the utilization of dipyrone. The mechanical ventilation duration was significantly lower (median difference: - 1 day; 95%CI -1 - 0; p < 0.001), especially for patients who were mechanically ventilated for a longer time (50th percentile difference: -0.78; 95%CI -1.51 - -0.05; p = 0.036; 75th percentile difference: -2.23; 95%CI -3.47 - -0.98; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A pain management protocol could reduce the intensive care unit consumption of fentanyl. This strategy was associated with a shorter mechanical ventilation duration.

A study comparing the effect of premedication with intravenous midazolam or dexmedetomidine on ketamine-fentanyl sedoanalgesia in burn patients: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Dressing changes and wound care-debridement procedures often cause fear and anxiety in burn patients, as these processes are quite painful. In order to determine the best method for alleviating pain during these procedures, the current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication prior to these painful burn care procedures.

METHODS

This comparative and randomized study included patients who had a burn size of 1563%, were aged 1870 years, were diagnosed with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA I-II), and who underwent painful burn care procedures. Patients were intravenously administered either 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group 1) or 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (Group 2) prior to the burn care procedure. Recorded at predetermined time points for each patient were heart rhythm (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂₎, standard bispectral index (BIS), and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS).

RESULTS

In the dexmedetomidine group, HR and MAP measurements of patients ​​at the 3rd, 5th, and 10th mins during sedation were significantly lower than the baseline values (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in SpO2 was observed in both groups at the 10th min during sedation, but the decline was higher in the midazolam group (p < 0.05). BIS measurements of the patients in both groups were significantly lower at 10 min. during sedation and at 15th and 60th mins during the procedure (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the group (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of both groups in during the sedation were higher in the 3rd, 5th and 10th mins than the baseline values (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of groups in during the burn procedure were significantly higher at 15 th min than the 0 th values, while the RSS scales of both groups were significantly lower in the 45th and 60th mins (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study indicate that dexmedetomidine causes hemodynamic alterations while midazolam causes respiratory depression. However, these effects are not severe, and we conclude that both agents are safe and effective to ensure sedation prior to painful burn-care procedures.

Clinical practice in the management of postoperative delirium by Chinese anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey designed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology

OBJECTIVE

In this survey, we assessed the current clinical management of postoperative delirium (POD) among Chinese anesthesiologists, after publishing the European POD guideline.

METHODS

We administered an electronic survey, designed according to the European POD guideline. The survey was completed using mobile devices.

RESULTS

In total, 1,514 respondents from China participated in the survey. Overall, 74.4% of participants reported that delirium is very important. More than 95% of participants stated that they routinely assessed POD. In total, 61.4% screened for POD using clinical observation and 37.6% used a delirium screening tool. Although the depth of anesthesia (a POD risk factor) was monitored, electroencephalogram monitoring was unavailable to 30.6% of respondents. Regarding treatment, only 24.1% of respondents used a standard algorithm; 58.5% used individualized treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our survey showed that there are high awareness levels among Chinese anesthesiologists regarding the importance of POD. However, routine assessment and monitoring of all patients, including perioperative anesthesia depth monitoring, and a treatment algorithm need to be implemented on a larger scale. According to the results, efforts should be made to improve the knowledge of POD among Chinese anesthesiologists.

[Study protocol to improve the quality of delirium management in intensive care]

BACKGROUND

Delirium in cardiac surgery patients is common and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as higher mortality. Protocols may improve outcome. In our cardiac surgery intensive care unit (ICU), patients with delirium have not received standardized treatment so far.

HYPOTHESIS

In cardiac surgery ICU patients, standardized delirium management will lead after a 4‑week introduction, compared to nonstandardized treatment, to a reduction of delirium duration.

METHODS

Prospective before/after study to evaluate a quality improvement project for delirium management over 12 weeks including 140 patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

(a) ≥18 years, (b) consent for research with their data.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

(a) palliative status, (b) present during both the before/after phase, (c) pregnancy, (d) included in a competitive study, or (e) delirium not assessable. The implementation includes the introduction of a protocol with interprofessional training, bedside-teaching, pocket cards, posters, and reminders. The primary outcome is the duration of delirium, assessed four times a day with validated instruments. Secondary outcome measures include delirium incidence, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, nursing/therapeutic interventions, cumulative doses of delirium-related drugs, and complications of delirium for a follow-up of 28 days. Empirical data will be analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study is a reduction of the duration and frequency of delirium in cardiac ICU patients and will provide evidence of the effect size of the introduction of a delirium management.

Routine management of postoperative delirium outside the ICU: Results of an international survey among anaesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a severe brain dysfunction. Although data indicate a high relevance, no survey has investigated the routine practice to monitor delirium outside the ICU setting after surgery. Prior to publishing of the new European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on POD, an international survey was conducted to assess current practice.

METHODS

European Society of Anaesthesiology-endorsed online survey; Trial Registration: NCT-identifier: 02513537.

RESULTS

In total, 566 respondents from 62 countries accessed, and 564 (99.6%) completed the survey (completion rate). Overall, 385 (68%) of the respondents reported that delirium is either "very relevant" or "relevant" for their daily clinical practice. In all, 38 (7%) of the respondents routinely monitor for delirium in >50% of all patients. Asked on the monitoring time point, more than half (n = 308, 55%) indicated to screen before or at recovery room discharge, 235 (42%) up to the first postoperative day, 143 (25%) up to 3 days, and 77 (14%) up to 5 postoperative days. Although there is a lack of long-term monitoring, nearly all respondents (n = 530, 94%) reported to treat delirium. Availability of EEG/EMG-based monitoring to assess the depth of anaesthesia was high in the study group (n = 547, 97%) and was used by more than one-third of the respondents to reduce risk of burst suppression (n = 189, 34%).

CONCLUSION

Although delirium is perceived as a relevant condition among anaesthesiologists, there is a high demand for implementing monitoring strategies after publishing of the POD Guideline. The survey shows that tools necessary for POD Guideline implementation are available in the centres represented by the respondents.

Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy: From Delirium to Dementia?

Sepsis is a major cause of death in intensive care units worldwide. The acute phase of sepsis is often accompanied by sepsis-associated encephalopathy, which is highly associated with increased mortality. Moreover, in the chronic phase, more than 50% of surviving patients suffer from severe and long-term cognitive deficits compromising their daily quality of life and placing an immense burden on primary caregivers. Due to a growing number of sepsis survivors, these long-lasting deficits are increasingly relevant. Despite the high incidence and clinical relevance, the pathomechanisms of acute and chronic stages in sepsis-associated encephalopathy are only incompletely understood, and no specific therapeutic options are yet available. Here, we review the emergence of sepsis-associated encephalopathy from initial clinical presentation to long-term cognitive impairment in sepsis survivors and summarize pathomechanisms potentially contributing to the development of sepsis-associated encephalopathy.

Variation in the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Intensive Care Units in British Columbia

BACKGROUND

Pain, agitation, and delirium are associated with negative outcomes in critically ill patients. Reducing variation in pain, agitation, and delirium management among institutions could improve care.

OBJECTIVES

To define opportunities to improve pain, agitation, and delirium management in intensive care units in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

A 13-item survey was developed to determine practices for assessing and managing pain, agitation, and delirium. Target participants were persons designated as the most informed about pain, agitation, and delirium management at each of the 30 intensive care units in British Columbia. Main measures were protocol use, assessment tool(s) used and frequency, and management approaches.

RESULTS

All 30 units responded; half of them had a unit-specific pain algorithm. The Behavioral Pain Scale and the numerical rating scale were the most common tools used to assess pain. Sites reported 15 different approaches to pain management: two-thirds used a sedation assessment tool, but some relied on physician diagnoses to identify sedation. Sites reported 18 different approaches to sedation management: most included an algorithm or order set for sedation management, but the most commonly used approach was individualized management by a clinician (17% for sedation and 30% for agitation). Sites reported 22 different approaches for delirium management: more than two-thirds used a delirium measurement instrument, but some relied on physician diagnoses to identify delirium.

CONCLUSION

Variation in assessment and management of pain, agitation, and delirium in British Columbia intensive care units highlights opportunities to improve care.

[Delirium in intensive care patients : A multiprofessional challenge]

Delirium is the most common form of cerebral dysfunction in intensive care patients and is a medical emergency that must be avoided or promptly diagnosed and treated. According to current knowledge the development of delirium seems to be caused by an interplay between increased vulnerability (predisposition) and simultaneous exposure to delirogenic factors. Since delirium is often overlooked in the clinical routine, a continuous screening for delirium should be performed. Due to the close connection between delirium, agitation and pain, sedation and analgesia must be evaluated at least every 8 h analogous to delirium screening. According to current knowledge, a multifactorial and multiprofessional approach is favored in the prevention and treatment of delirium. Non-pharmaceutical interventions through early mobilization, reorientation, sleep improvement, adequate pain therapy and avoidance of polypharmacy are of great importance. Depending on the clinical picture, different substances are used in symptom-oriented drug treatment of delirium. In order to achieve these diagnostic and therapeutic goals, an interdisciplinary treatment team consisting of intensive care, intensive care physicians, ward pharmacists, physiotherapists, nutrition specialists and psychiatrists is necessary in order to meet the requirements of the patient and their relatives.

ICU Physicians' Perception of Patients' Tolerance Levels in Light Sedation Impacts Sedation Practice for Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Purpose: To investigate physicians' perception of patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, which could affect sedation practice for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients.

Methods: This is a questionnaire survey combined with a 24 h cross-sectional study. The physician's propensity score for light sedation (PS-_LS) was estimated by his/her response to the given answers for each item of the questionnaire, which tested the levels of interviewee's desire to manage MV patient with light sedation. Thereby, the mean physicians' PS-_LS of each participating ICU (ICU-_meanPS-_LS) was calculated. The practical measurements of all variables listed on the questionnaire were used to semi-quantitatively assess stimulus intensity of what the recruited patients suffered (i.e., semi-quantitative stimulus intensity, SSI). Sedation depth was assessed by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS).

Results: 555 of 558 (99.5%) physicians from 102 ICUs were concerned with patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation while titrating sedation depth. The physician's PS-_LS was non-normally distributed with median (IQR) of 3 (0–5). ICU-_meanPS-_LS was calculated in 92 out of 102 ICUs participating in the cross-sectional study, which was ranged from −5 to 7 with a median (IQR) of 2.37 (0.16–4.33). A significant increasing trend in prevalence of light sedation was observed over increasing ICU-_meanPS-_LS quartiles (from Q1 to Q4, χ²-test for trend, p = 0.002). Moreover, odds ratio for probability of light sedation remained significant in MV patients from Q4 ICUs vs. Q1 ICUs, adjusted by APACHE II score (OR, 2.332; 95% CI: 1.463–3.717; p < 0.001) or SSI score (OR, 2.445; 95% CI: 1.468–4.074; p = 0.001). Notably, adjusted OR for mortality was significant in deeply sedated MV patients (OR, 2.034; 95% CI: 1.435–2.884; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: ICU physician's individualized perception for patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, in light sedation affected sedation practice for MV patients.

Occurrence and Practices for Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Intensive Care Unit Patients

OBJECTIVE

Our study described the occurrence, assessment, prevention, and management practices of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in four intensive care units (ICUs) from the Puerto Rico Medical Center and compared findings with the 2013 PAD guidelines.

METHODS

A descriptive study, with repeated bedside measures (two times a day/two times a week) of PAD and review of patient clinical records.

RESULTS

Eighty ICU patients (20 per ICU) were evaluated, (median 3 times [IQR, 2-7]). At least once during the assessment period, 57% percent of patients had significant pain and 34% had delirium. Moreover, 46% were deeply sedated, 17.5% had agitation, and 52.5% of patients were within the recommended Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. The Numeric Rating Scale and RASS were the most common tools used by clinicians to evaluate pain and agitation/sedation levels, respectively. Clinicians did not assess pain in patients unable to self-report with any guideline-recommended tools, as was the case for delirium. Fentanyl and morphine were the most commonly used analgesics, while benzodiazepines were used for sedation.

CONCLUSION

Although pain, agitation, and delirium occurrence were similar to other studies, patients continue to suffer. A gap exists between clinical practices in these ICUs and current guidelines. Strategies that contribute to integrating guidelines into these ICUs should be developed, studied, and implemented.

Impact of a nurse engagement intervention on pain, agitation and delirium assessment in a community intensive care unit

Background

In 2013, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Immobility and sleep were subsequently added in 2018. Despite the well-established advantages of implementing these guidelines, adoption and adherence remain suboptimal. This is especially true in community settings, where PAD assessment is performed less often, and the implementation of PAD guidelines has not yet been studied. The purpose of this prospective interventional study is to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention on PAD assessment in a community intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

All patients admitted to our community ICU for over 24 hours were included. A 20-week baseline audit was performed, followed by the intervention, and a 20-week postintervention audit. The intervention consisted of a survey, focus groups and education sessions. Primary outcomes included rates of daily PAD assessment using validated tools.

Results

There were improvements in the number of patients with at least one assessment per day of pain (67.5% vs 59.3%, p=0.04), agitation (93.1% vs 78.7%, p<0.001) and delirium (54.2% vs 39.4%, p<0.001), and the number of patients with target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale ordered (63.1% vs 46.8%, p=0.002). There was a decrease in the rate of physical restraint use (10.0% vs 30.9%, p<0.001) and no change in self-extubation rate (0.9% vs 2.5%, p=0.2).

Conclusion

The implementation of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention has the potential to improve rates of PAD assessment in community ICUs. Screening rates in our ICU remain suboptimal despite these improvements. We plan to implement multidisciplinary interventions targeting physicians, nurses and families to close the observed care gap.

Chronic pain in critical care survivors: a narrative review

Chronic pain is an important problem after critical care admission. Estimates of the prevalence of chronic pain in the year after discharge range from 14% to 77% depending on the type of cohort, the tool used to measure pain, and the time point when pain was assessed. The majority of data available come from studies using health-related quality of life tools, although some have included pain-specific tools. Nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain can occur in critical care survivors, but limited information about the aetiology, body site, and temporal trajectory of pain is currently available. Older age, pre-existing pain, and medical co-morbidity have been associated with pain after critical care admission. No trials were identified of interventions to target chronic pain in survivors specifically. Larger studies, using pain-specific tools, over an extended follow-up period are required to confirm the prevalence, identify risk factors, explore any association between acute and chronic pain in this setting, determine the underlying pathological mechanisms, and inform the development of future analgesic interventions.

International Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium Practices: a prospective cohort study

Background

While understanding of critical illness and delirium continue to evolve, the impact on clinical practice is often unknown and delayed. Our purpose was to provide insight into practice changes by characterizing analgesia and sedation usage and occurrence of delirium in different years and international regions.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of two multicenter, international, prospective cohort studies. Mechanically ventilated adults were followed for up to 28 days in 2010 and 2016. Proportion of days utilizing sedation, analgesia, and performance of a spontaneous awakening trial (SAT), and occurrence of delirium were described for each year and region and compared between years.

Results

A total of 14,281 patients from 6 international regions were analyzed. Proportion of days utilizing analgesia and sedation increased from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001 for each). Benzodiazepine use decreased in every region but remained the most common sedative in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Performance of SATs increased overall, driven mostly by the US/Canada region (24 to 35% of days with sedation, p < 0.001). Any delirium during admission increased from 7 to 8% of patients overall and doubled in the US/Canada region (17 to 36%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Analgesia and sedation practices varied widely across international regions and significantly changed over time. Opportunities for improvement in care include increasing delirium monitoring, performing SATs, and decreasing use of sedation, particularly benzodiazepines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0379-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Cost of ICU Delirium and Coma in the Intensive Care Unit Patient

RATIONALE

Intensive care unit (ICU) delirium is highly prevalent and a potentially avoidable hospital complication. The current cost of ICU delirium is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To specify the association between the daily occurrence of delirium in the ICU with costs of ICU care accounting for time-varying illness severity and death.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We performed a prospective cohort study within medical and surgical ICUs in a large academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

We analyzed critically ill patients (N=479) with respiratory failure and/or shock.

MEASURES

Covariates included baseline factors (age, insurance, cognitive impairment, comorbidities, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score) and time-varying factors (sequential organ failure assessment score, mechanical ventilation, and severe sepsis). The primary analysis used a novel 3-stage regression method: first, estimation of the cumulative cost of delirium over 30 ICU days and then costs separated into those attributable to increased resource utilization among survivors and those that were avoided on the account of delirium's association with early mortality in the ICU.

RESULTS

The patient-level 30-day cumulative cost of ICU delirium attributable to increased resource utilization was $17,838 (95% confidence interval, $11,132-$23,497). A combination of professional, dialysis, and bed costs accounted for the largest percentage of the incremental costs associated with ICU delirium. The 30-day cumulative incremental costs of ICU delirium that were avoided due to delirium-associated early mortality was $4654 (95% confidence interval, $2056-7869).

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium is associated with substantial costs after accounting for time-varying illness severity and could be 20% higher (∼$22,500) if not for its association with early ICU mortality.

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD

AIMS

Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients' levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR.

METHOD

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874).

Diagnostic Performance and Utility of Quantitative EEG Analyses in Delirium: Confirmatory Results From a Large Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background. The lack of objective disease markers is a major cause of misdiagnosis and nonstandardized approaches in delirium. Recent studies conducted in well-selected patients and confined study environments suggest that quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) can provide such markers. We hypothesize that qEEG helps remedy diagnostic uncertainty not only in well-defined study cohorts but also in a heterogeneous hospital population. Methods. In this retrospective case-control study, EEG power spectra of delirious patients and age-/gender-matched controls (n = 31 and n = 345, respectively) were fitted in a linear model to test their performance as binary classifiers. We subsequently evaluated the diagnostic performance of the best classifiers in control samples with normal EEGs (n = 534) and real-world samples including pathologic findings (n = 4294). Test reliability was estimated through split-half analyses. Results. We found that the combination of spectral power at F3-P4 at 2 Hz (area under the curve [AUC] = .994) and C3-O1 at 19 Hz (AUC = .993) provided a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99% to identify delirious patients among normal controls. These classifiers also yielded a false positive rate as low as 5% and increased the pretest probability of being delirious by 57% in an unselected real-world sample. Split-half reliabilities were .98 and .99, respectively. Conclusion. This retrospective study yielded preliminary evidence that qEEG provides excellent diagnostic performance to identify delirious patients even outside confined study environments. It furthermore revealed reduced beta power as a novel specific finding in delirium and that a normal EEG excludes delirium. Prospective studies including parameters of pretest probability and delirium severity are required to elaborate on these promising findings.