Improving Nurses Knowledge and Practices of Delirium Assessment at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital: A Quasi Experimental Study

Nurses' perceptions of patient pain, delirium, and sedation assessments in the intensive care unit: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Pain, delirium, and sedation should be assessed routinely using validated assessment scales. Inappropriately managed pain, delirium, and sedation in critically ill patients can have serious consequences regarding mortality, morbidity, and increased healthcare costs. Despite the benefits of a bundled approach to pain, delirium, and sedation assessments, few studies have explored nurses' perceptions of using validated scales for such assessments. Furthermore, no studies have examined nurses' perceptions of undertaking these assessments as a bundled approach.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to explore nurses' knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and experiences regarding the use of validated pain, delirium, and sedation assessment tools as a bundled approach in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was adopted. We conducted four focus groups and 10 individual interviews with 23 nurses from a 26-bed adult ICU at an Australian metropolitan tertiary teaching hospital. Data were analysed using thematic analysis techniques.

FINDINGS

Four themes were identified: (i) factors impacting nurses' ability to undertake pain, delirium, and sedation assessments in the ICU; (ii) use, misuse, and nonuse of tools and use of alternative strategies to assess pain, delirium, and sedation; (iii) implementing assessment tools; and (iv) consequences of suboptimal pain, delirium, and sedation assessments. A gap was found in nurses' use of validated scales to assess pain, delirium, and sedation as a bundled approach, and they were not familiar with using a bundled approach to assessment.

CONCLUSION

The practice gap could be addressed using a carefully planned implementation strategy. Strategies could include a policy and protocol for assessing pain, delirium, and sedation in the ICU, engagement of change champions to facilitate uptake of the strategy, reminder and feedback systems, further in-service education, and ongoing workplace training for nurses.

Delirium Diagnosis, Complication Recognition, and Treatment Knowledge among Nurses in an Italian Local Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study

Delirium, a multifactorial condition with an acute onset and diverse clinical manifestations, poses a significant challenge in the care of hospitalized individuals aged 65 years and older. This study aimed to evaluate the level of knowledge among nursing healthcare personnel regarding the diagnosis, recognition of complications, and treatment of delirium. A paper questionnaire consisting of 18 multiple-choice questions was distributed to nurses in twelve operational units located in four facilities within a local hospital in a specific geographical region under the jurisdiction of the Romagna Local Health Authority in Italy. Out of 194 respondents, the overall acceptance rate was 64.2%. The findings revealed an insufficient understanding of delirium among the nursing staff, with more than 40% of respondents answering incorrectly to five out of nine questions related to delirium knowledge, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Notably, gender emerged as a significant determinant, with female participants exhibiting a substantial odds ratio (OR) of 3.50 (p = 0.011 and CI95% = 1.34-9.16) compared to their male counterparts, indicating a higher likelihood of receiving delirium training among females. Furthermore, prolonged tenure within the same work context was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving delirium training compared to those with less than two years of experience (OR = 0.21, p = 0.034, and CI95% = 0.05-0.89 for 6-10 years of tenure; OR = 0.22, p = 0.038, and CI95% = 0.05-0.92 for over 10 years of tenure). This study underscores the urgent need for enhanced delirium education and improved strategies among nurses to effectively manage patients with delirium. The results advocate regular educational sessions utilizing diverse formats to comprehensively address knowledge gaps among nursing staff. This study was not registered.

Development and validation of nurse's assessment ability questionnaire in delirium subtypes: Based on Delphi expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Delirium, a common occurrence in clinical work, can be divided into three subtypes according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5 th Edition (DSM-5). Each subtype has its special significance and focus. As the primary caregivers and observer of delirious patients, nurses should be able to quickly and accurately indentify each subtype. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify nurses' assessment ability of delirium subtypes. However, there is currently no suitable questionnaire available for investigating nurses' assessment ability of delirium subtypes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a scientifically validated questionnaire for assessing nursing assessment ability of delirium subtypes based on Knowledge-Attitude-Practice(KAP) Model.

METHODS

The questionnaire was conducted from October 2021 to February 2022 to assess the KAP status of nurses the regarding delirium subtype. A two-round Delphi Method was employed to revise the draft questionnaire, ensuring the importance and rationality of each item. Ten experts specializing in critically ill patients, clinical nursing, and nursing management were invited from seven provinces in China for the Delphi process. Additionally, we validated the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The return rate in the first and second rounds were 83% and 100%, respectively. The individual authority coefficients for the two rounds of correspondence ranged from 0.787 to 0.987, while the overall authority coefficient of experts was 0.866. Kendall's coefficient of coordination for the importance scores were found to be 0.192 and 0.156, respectively, whereas those for rationality scores were calculated as 0.149 and 0.141, respectively. Notably, all mean values of importance and rationality scores in the two rounds were exceeded a threshold of 4.10 across both rounds of assessment with coefficient variations (CV) ranging from 0.00 to 0.19 for importance ratings and 0.00 to 0.16 for rationality ratings, both of which were <0.25. Experts proposed modifications to eleven items while introducing four new ones into consideration during this process; thus ensuring that reliability and validity standards were met by the final questionnaire design which consists of a total of thirty-seven items distributed across four dimensions: delirium subtype-related knowledge, assessment attitude, assessment practice, and knowledge source-thereby establishing its clinical relevance as a reliable scientific instrument.

CONCLUSION

The development process is both scientific and theoretical, encompassing reliable expert correspondence results and a diverse range of question formats. As thus, effectively captures the current landscape of delirium subtypes assessment among clinical nurses from multiple perspectives, including knowledge level and source, attitude, assessment behavior, and assessment barriers. It offers comprehensive and detailed insights.