Search

Abstract Background Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed in acute care for clinical indications other than primary psychiatric disorders such as delirium. Unfortunately, they are commonly continued at hospital discharge and at follow-ups thereafter. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize antipsychotic medication prescribing practices, to describe healthcare professional perceptions on antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices, and to report on antipsychotic deprescribing strategies within acute care. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception date to July 3, 2021 for published primary research studies reporting on antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices, and perceptions on those practices within acute care. We included all study designs excluding protocols, editorials, opinion pieces, and systematic or scoping reviews. Two reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework prior to data abstraction (10.17605/OSF.IO/W635Z). Results Of 4528 studies screened, we included 80 studies. Healthcare professionals across all acute care settings (intensive care, inpatient, emergency department) perceived prescribing haloperidol (n = 36/36, 100%) most frequently, while measured prescribing practices reported common quetiapine prescribing (n = 26/36, 76%). Indications for antipsychotic prescribing were delirium (n = 48/69, 70%) and agitation (n = 20/69, 29%). Quetiapine (n = 18/18, 100%) was most frequently prescribed at hospital discharge. Three studies reported in-hospital antipsychotic deprescribing strategies focused on pharmacist-driven deprescribing authority, handoff tools, and educational sessions. Conclusions Perceived antipsychotic prescribing practices differed from measured prescribing practices in acute care settings. Few in-hospital deprescribing strategies were described. Ongoing evaluation of antipsychotic deprescribing strategies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and risk.

Abstract Background Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. Methods This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. Results In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71–0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66–0.71)) (z score of − 2.73 (p

Abstract Background Delirium is a syndrome characterized by acute fluctuations and alterations in attention and arousal. Critically ill patients are at particularly high risk, and those that develop delirium are more likely to experience poor clinical outcomes such as prolonged duration of ICU and hospital length of stay, and increased mortality. Melatonin and melatonin agonists (MMA) have the potential to decrease the incidence and severity of delirium through their hypnotic and sedative-sparing effects, thus improving health-related outcomes. The objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and safety of MMA for the prevention and treatment of ICU delirium. Methods We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL to identify studies evaluating MMA in critically ill populations. We will also search http://apps.who.int/trialsearch for ongoing and unpublished studies and PROSPERO for registered reviews. We will not impose restrictions on language, date, or journal of publication. Authors will independently screen for eligible studies using pre-defined criteria; data extraction from eligible studies will be performed in duplicate. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the risk of bias and quality of randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. Our primary outcome of interest is delirium incidence, and secondary outcomes include duration of delirium, number of delirium- and coma-free days, use of physical and chemical (e.g., antipsychotics or benzodiazepines) restraints, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality, long-term neurocognitive outcomes, hospital discharge disposition, and adverse events. We will use Review Manager (RevMan) to pool effect estimates from included studies. We will present results as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences, or standardized mean differences, for continuous outcomes. Discussion Current guidelines make no pharmacological recommendations for either the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium. This systematic review will synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of MMA for this purpose, thus potentially informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015024713