Association of natural light exposure and delirium according to the presence or absence of windows in the intensive care unit

The Influence of Exposure to Nature on Inpatient Hospital Stays: A Scoping Review

AIM

To summarize the existing literature surrounding the influence of natural elements on course in hospital and to introduce clinicians to the concept of biophilic design and the potential for incorporation of nature into the hospital environment as a component of a therapeutic hospitalization.

BACKGROUND

For decades, architects and designers have espoused the benefits of incorporating natural elements into the healthcare environment for therapeutic purposes. The benefits of this "biophilic" design philosophy has been investigated predominantly in long-term care or rehabilitation settings; however, some of the most appealing opportunities lie in the acute care setting.

METHODS

This scoping review surveyed the literature surrounding the influence of exposure to nature on course in acute hospitalizations. After screening 12,979 citations, 41 articles were included. Exposures were divided into seven categories, the most common of which were the presence of a window/natural light, a natural scene through a window, and nature soundscapes. These articles were reviewed in a narrative fashion and thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Studies were extremely heterogeneous in their design, research questions, and reported outcomes. Types of exposure to nature studied were exposure to a real natural scene through a window, presence of a window/nature light, nature in the healthcare environment, art depicting nature, direct contact with nature, nature soundscapes, and nature experienced through virtual reality (VR).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to nature during an acute hospital admission appears to have a real but small therapeutic effect, predominantly on psychological metrics like anxiety/depression, pain, and patient satisfaction. Greater beneficial effects are seen with greater durations of exposure to nature and greater degrees of immersion into nature (e.g., creating multisensory experiences using emerging technology like VR).

Geriatric Psychiatric Emergencies

Geriatric patients, those 65 years of age and older, often experience psychiatric symptoms or changes in mentation as a manifestation of an organic illness. It is crucial to recognize and treat delirium in these patients as it is often under-recognized and associated with significant morbidity. Iatrogenic causes of altered mentation or delirium due to medication adverse reactions are common. Treatment of the underlying cause, creating an environment conducive to orientation, and minimizing agitation and discomfort are first-line interventions. Antipsychotics are first-line pharmacologic interventions if needed to preserve patient safety.

There's No Place Like Home: Delirium as a Barrier in Geriatric Trauma

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is associated with a three-fold increase in frequency of 6-mo mortality following intensive care unit admission. Outside of mortality, it has been linked with severe morbidity including long-term cognitive decline, loss of autonomy, and increased risk of institutionalization. There is a paucity of literature regarding delirium and geriatric trauma patients. The aim of our study is to determine predictive factors of delirium in geriatric trauma patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all geriatric (>65 y) trauma patients with a documented frailty score at a Level I Trauma Center from 1/2019 to 9/2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed. Geriatric patients with delirium (D) and those without delirium (ND) were compared. Patients were excluded if they did not have a documented frailty score or died before admission.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred and seventeen patients met criteria; 40 (3%) patients developed delirium. Neither age nor gender was different between the two groups. Frailty scores were not different between the two groups. Patients with documented delirium had a higher incidence of a positive drug screen on admission (85% versus 62.2%, P = 0.0034), higher median injury severity score (10 versus 9, P = 0.0088), and longer hospital (7 d versus 3 d, P < 0.001) and intensive care unit (1 d versus 0 d, P < 0.001) length of stay (LOS) than their ND counterparts. The D group had a higher frequency of benzodiazepine (47.5% versus 19.3%, P < 0.001) and narcotic use (77.5% versus 56.5%, P = 0.0085). Tethers nor bedrest orders were significantly associated with delirium. Incidence of urinary tract infection (12.5% versus 1%, P < 0.001) and restraint use (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased risk of delirium. Additionally, those with a diagnosis of delirium were more often discharged to a skilled nursing facility than those in the ND group (45% versus 30.8%, P = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

We aimed to identify key predictive factors of delirium in our study population and found that certain factors correlated with higher frequencies of delirium in our geriatric trauma patients. Preadmission and early controlled substance use were significantly associated with delirium, as were the presence of urinary tract infection and extended intensive care unit LOS. By recognizing some of these modifiable factors, LOS may decrease while increasing the likelihood of discharge home.

Evaluation of the sensory environment in a large tertiary ICU

BACKGROUND

ICU survival is improving. However, many patients leave ICU with ongoing cognitive, physical, and/or psychological impairments and reduced quality of life. Many of the reasons for these ongoing problems are unmodifiable; however, some are linked with the ICU environment. Suboptimal lighting and excessive noise contribute to a loss of circadian rhythms and sleep disruptions, leading to increased mortality and morbidity. Despite long-standing awareness of these problems, meaningful ICU redesign is yet to be realised, and the 'ideal' ICU design is likely to be unique to local context and patient cohorts. To inform the co-design of an improved ICU environment, this study completed a detailed evaluation of the ICU environment, focussing on acoustics, sound, and light.

METHODS

This was an observational study of the lighting and acoustic environment using sensors and formal evaluations. Selected bedspaces, chosen to represent different types of bedspaces in the ICU, were monitored during prolonged study periods. Data were analysed descriptively using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Two of the three monitored bedspaces showed a limited difference in lighting levels across the day, with average daytime light intensity not exceeding 300 Lux. In bedspaces with a window, the spectral power distribution (but not intensity) of the light was similar to natural light when all ceiling lights were off. However, when the ceiling lights were on, the spectral power distribution was similar between bedspaces with and without windows. Average sound levels in the study bedspaces were 63.75, 56.80, and 59.71 dBA, with the single room being noisier than the two open-plan bedspaces. There were multiple occasions of peak sound levels > 80 dBA recorded, with the maximum sound level recorded being > 105 dBA. We recorded one new monitor or ventilator alarm commencing every 69 s in each bedspace, with only 5% of alarms actioned. Acoustic testing showed poor sound absorption and blocking.

CONCLUSIONS

This study corroborates other studies confirming that the lighting and acoustic environments in the study ICU were suboptimal, potentially contributing to adverse patient outcomes. This manuscript discusses potential solutions to identified problems. Future studies are required to evaluate whether an optimised ICU environment positively impacts patient outcomes.

The effects of hypomagnesemia on delirium in middle-aged and older adult patients admitted to medical intensive care units

Background

In critically ill patients, the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction is delirium, which is independently associated with higher morbidity and mortality. While electrolyte imbalance is one of the precipitating factors, the impact of hypomagnesemia on the incidence of delirium remains unknown.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral center between January and June 2020. Patients with ICU stay ≥48 hours and aged 40–85 years were included. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of delirium in the ICU. Patients were divided into two groups based on serum magnesium level at ICU admission. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed, and covariates were selected using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method.

Results

A total of 109 patients included 43 (39.4%) women and had a median age of 69.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0–76.0 years). The median magnesium level was 1.7 mg/dl (IQR, 1.5–1.9 mg/dl), and the cumulative incidence of delirium was 32.1% (35 patients). Hypomagnesemia was independently associated with delirium (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–4.38), along with prior use of immunosuppressants (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.46–6.48) or benzodiazepines (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.54–10.50), body mass index (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84–1.02), and alcohol history (aHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.74–3.80).

Conclusions

In critically ill adults, hypomagnesemia increases the risk of delirium by more than two-fold compared to patients with normal magnesium level.

The future of intensive care: delirium should no longer be an issue

In the ideal intensive care unit (ICU) of the future, all patients are free from delirium, a syndrome of brain dysfunction frequently observed in critical illness and associated with worse ICU-related outcomes and long-term cognitive impairment. Although screening for delirium requires limited time and effort, this devastating disorder remains underestimated during routine ICU care. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a catastrophic reduction in delirium monitoring, prevention, and patient care due to organizational issues, lack of personnel, increased use of benzodiazepines and restricted family visitation. These limitations led to increases in delirium incidence, a situation that should never be repeated. Good sedation practices should be complemented by novel ICU design and connectivity, which will facilitate non-pharmacological sedation, anxiolysis and comfort that can be supplemented by balanced pharmacological interventions when necessary. Improvements in the ICU sound, light control, floor planning, and room arrangement can facilitate a healing environment that minimizes stressors and aids delirium prevention and management. The fundamental prerequisite to realize the delirium-free ICU, is an awake non-sedated, pain-free comfortable patient whose management follows the A to F (A-F) bundle. Moreover, the bundle should be expanded with three additional letters, incorporating humanitarian care: gaining (G) insight into patient needs, delivering holistic care with a 'home-like' (H) environment, and redefining ICU architectural design (I). Above all, the delirium-free world relies upon people, with personal challenges for critical care teams to optimize design, environmental factors, management, time spent with the patient and family and to humanize ICU care.

2021 KSCCM clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disturbance in the intensive care unit

We revised and expanded the “2010 Guideline for the Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Adult Intensive Care Unit (ICU).” We revised the 2010 Guideline based mainly on the 2018 “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption (PADIS) in Adult Patients in the ICU,” which was an updated 2013 pain, agitation, and delirium guideline with the inclusion of two additional topics (rehabilitation/mobility and sleep). Since it was not possible to hold face-to-face meetings of panels due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, all discussions took place via virtual conference platforms and e-mail with the participation of all panelists. All authors drafted the recommendations, and all panelists discussed and revised the recommendations several times. The quality of evidence for each recommendation was classified as high (level A), moderate (level B), or low/very low (level C), and all panelists voted on the quality level of each recommendation. The participating panelists had no conflicts of interest on related topics. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep Disturbance panels issued 42 recommendations (level A, 6; level B, 18; and level C, 18). The 2021 clinical practice guideline provides up-to-date information on how to prevent and manage pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disturbance in adult ICU patients. We believe that these guidelines can provide an integrated method for clinicians to manage PADIS in adult ICU patients.