Search

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 validat

OBJECTIVES Delirium is common in the intensive care unit (ICU), often affecting older patients. A bedside electronic tool has the potential to revolutionise delirium screening. Our group describe a novel approach to the design and development of delirium screening questions for the express purpose of use within an electronic device. Preliminary results are presented. METHODS Our group designed a series of tests which targeted the clinical criteria for delirium according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria against predefined requirements, including applicability to older patients. RESULTS Candidate questions, including tests of attention and awareness, were devised and then refined by an expert multidisciplinary group, including geriatricians. A scoring scheme was constructed, with testing to failure an indicator of delirium. The device was tested in healthy controls, aged 20-80 years, who were recorded as being without delirium. CONCLUSION e-Screening for delirium requires a novel approach to instrument design but may revolutionise recognition of delirium in ICU.

Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient’s hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum-calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.

An exploratory study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of dehydration in older patients (aged ≥60 years) with and without cognitive impairment (CI) admitted to hospital and to examine associations between dehydration, CI and frailty. Forty-four patients participated and dehydration was assessed within 24 hours of admission and at day 4 or at discharge, whichever occurred first (study exit). Patients’ cognitive function and frailty status were assessed using validated instruments. Twenty-seven (61%) patients had CI and 61% were frail. The prevalence of dehydration at admission was 29% (n=12) and 19% (n=6) at study exit and dehydration status did not differ according to either CI status or frailty status. Within the non-CI group, however, significantly more frail than fit patients were dehydrated at admission (p=0.03). These findings indicate that dehydration is common amongst older hospital patients, and that frailty may increase the risk for dehydration in cognitively intact older patients.

While dehydration is common in older patients and is associated with poor outcomes, it has been infrequently studied in the hospital setting. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify potential barriers and enablers to the maintenance of adequate hydration in older patients in an acute hospital environment. An observational study, involving patients aged 60 years and older admitted to an acute care hospital in Queensland, Australia, was undertaken. Forty-four patients were observed during mealtimes, and chart and room audits were performed to identify hydration management strategies, weight records and the presence or absence of fluid balance charts. Results revealed a number of system and practice-related barriers including patient difficulties with opening fluid containers and low levels of documentation of hydration management strategies. Addressing these issues is an important first step towards improving the management of hydration in medically ill older hospital patients.

Background The incidence of clinically apparent stroke in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) exceeds that of any other procedure performed by interventional cardiologists and, in the index admission, occurs more than twice as frequently with TAVI than with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, this represents only a small component of the vast burden of neurological injury that occurs during TAVI, with recent evidence suggesting that many strokes are clinically silent or only subtly apparent. Additionally, insult may manifest as slight neurocognitive dysfunction rather than overt neurological deficits. Characterisation of the incidence and underlying aetiology of these neurological events may lead to identification of currently unrecognised neuroprotective strategies. Methods The Silent and Apparent Neurological Injury in TAVI (SANITY) Study is a prospective, multicentre, observational study comparing the incidence of neurological injury after TAVI versus SAVR. It introduces an intensive, standardised, formal neurologic and neurocognitive disease assessment for all aortic valve recipients, regardless of intervention (SAVR, TAVI), valve-type (bioprosthetic, Edwards SAPIEN-XT) or access route (sternotomy, transfemoral, transapical or transaortic). Comprehensive monitoring of neurological insult will also be recorded to more fully define and compare the neurological burden of the procedures and identify targets for harm minimisation strategies. Discussion The SANITY study undertakes the most rigorous assessment of neurological injury reported in the literature to date. It attempts to accurately characterise the insult and sustained injury associated with both TAVI and SAVR in an attempt to advance understanding of this complication and associations thus allowing for improved patient selection and procedural modification.

Objective(s): A new model of care for the management of patients with delirium was developed and evaluated. Method: A 4-bedded Close Observation Unit (COU) was introduced. The model comprised an education strategy for assistants in nursing (AIN), environmental adaptations and AIN to patient ratio of 1:4. Outcomes in all patients with delirium before and after introduction of the new model of care were compared. Results: 105 patients were admitted to COU, of whom 100 (95%) were diagnosed with delirium. In-hospital mortality improved after introduction of the unit (15% versus 5%; p=0.002) without significant change in length of stay, discharge destination or falls frequency. Conclusion: A dedicated unit for delirium management within medicine achieved a reduction in mortality.