Search

Background Delirium is common, distressing and associated with poor outcomes. Previous studies investigating the impact of delirium on cognitive outcomes have been limited by incomplete ascertainment of baseline cognition or lack of prospective delirium assessments. This study quantified the association between delirium and cognitive function over time by prospectively ascertaining delirium in a cohort aged ≥ 65 years in whom baseline cognition had previously been established. Methods For 12 months, we assessed participants from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II-Newcastle for delirium daily during hospital admissions. At 1-year, we assessed cognitive decline and dementia in those with and without delirium. We evaluated the effect of delirium (including its duration and number of episodes) on cognitive function over time, independently of baseline cognition and illness severity. Results Eighty two of 205 participants recruited developed delirium in hospital (40%). One-year outcome data were available for 173 participants: 18 had a new dementia diagnosis, 38 had died. Delirium was associated with cognitive decline (−1.8 Mini-Mental State Examination points [95% CI –3.5 to –0.2]) and an increased risk of new dementia diagnosis at follow up (OR 8.8 [95% CI 1.9–41.4]). More than one episode and more days with delirium (>5 days) were associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Conclusions Delirium increases risk of future cognitive decline and dementia, independent of illness severity and baseline cognition, with more episodes associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Given that delirium has been shown to be preventable in some cases, we propose that delirium is a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: delirium is under-recognised in comparison to other common and serious acute disorders. A 2006 survey of UK junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) identified poor knowledge of the diagnostic criteria and treatment of delirium. We hypothesised that increased prominence accorded to delirium in the form of national initiatives and guidelines may have had an impact on understanding among junior doctors. Objective: we repeated a multi-centre survey of knowledge of and attitudes to delirium in junior doctors (not undertaking specialist training) assessing unselected acute medical presentations (the 'medical take'). Design: questionnaire-based survey in 48 acute hospitals in UK and Ireland. Methods: we used questionnaires designed to test understanding of delirium, including prevalence, knowledge of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, use of specific screening tools, association with adverse outcomes and pharmacological management. Results: one thousand two hundred and fifteen trainee physicians participated. Compared with the 2006 cohort, improvements were seen in 9 of 17 knowledge-based questions and overall score improved in the 2013 cohort. Nonetheless, significant deficits in knowledge, particularly for the diagnostic criteria for delirium, remained. Conclusions: despite improvements in some aspects of delirium knowledge, the diagnostic criteria for delirium remain poorly understood. Challenges remain in ensuring adequate training for junior doctors in delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: delirium is common and serious, yet frequently missed by medical staff. It is known that delirium is widely taught and examined in UK medical schools; however, what is taught, and how such teaching is delivered, remains unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the content of UK undergraduate medical education about delirium and establish how it is delivered. A secondary aim was to highlight and share examples of gold-standard teaching on delirium.Methods: all UK undergraduate medical schools were invited to complete a survey. Schools were asked to describe how delirium was taught and to provide delirium-related learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were mapped to the three overarching themes outlined in Tomorrow's Doctors (knowledge, skills and attitudes).Results: 24/31 schools (77%) provided responses. In line with previous work, delirium was widely taught and examined. 18/24 schools reported at least one learning outcome that mapped to the knowledge domain, 19/24 for the skills domain and 2/24 for the attitudes domain. 4/24 evaluated the impact of sessions and 3/24 involved patients and the public in teaching. 13/24 schools were confident that exposure to delirium was guaranteed. Innovative teaching methods were reported by a number of schools; weblinks to examples are provided.Discussion: there was widespread failure to address attitudes on delirium within teaching, to evaluate the impact of sessions, to involve patients and the public in teaching and to guarantee exposure to delirium. Future teaching interventions should be directed at attitudinal outcomes, using a synthesis of clinical experience with multidisciplinary interaction and supportive technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: delirium is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Understanding of delirium among doctors in medical and ICU settings has previously been shown to be low. We hypothesised that junior doctors who had gained experience in geriatrics, neurology or psychiatry may have an increased knowledge of delirium.Methods: we used data from a large multi-centre study of junior doctors conducted between December 2006 and January 2007 which is, to date, the largest survey of understanding of delirium among junior doctors. The original survey used a questionnaire within which certain key items led to a correct or incorrect answer. Total correct answers were recorded giving a maximum total knowledge score of 17 for each participant. The relationship between total knowledge score achieved on the questionnaire and time since qualification; specialty experience in geriatric medicine, psychiatry and/or neurology and self-reported experience with the Confusion Assessment Method (independent variables) were modelled using linear regression.Results: around half (53.2%; 399 of 750) of those surveyed stated that they had experience in geriatric medicine. In contrast only 4.1 and 8.0% of respondents had experience in psychiatry and neurology, respectively. Experience in geriatric medicine was significantly associated with a modest increase in correct answers (4.7 versus 4.3 points, P = 0.020). No other variables were significantly associated with better scores.Conclusion: experience in geriatric medicine leads to a small improvement in understanding of delirium among junior doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Delirium is one of the foremost unmet medical needs in healthcare. It affects one in eight hospitalised patients and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes including increased length of stay, new institutionalisation, and considerable patient distress. Recent studies also show that delirium strongly predicts future new-onset dementia, as well as accelerating existing dementia. The importance of delirium is now increasingly being recognised, with a growing research base, new professional international organisations, increased interest from policymakers, and greater prominence of delirium in educational and audit programmes. Nevertheless, the field faces several complex research and clinical challenges. In this article we focus on selected areas of recent progress and/or uncertainty in delirium research and practice. (i) Pathogenesis: recent studies in animal models using peripheral inflammatory stimuli have begun to suggest mechanisms underlying the delirium syndrome as well as its link with dementia. A growing body of blood and cerebrospinal fluid studies in humans have implicated inflammatory and stress mediators. (ii) Prevention: delirium prevention is effective in the context of research studies, but there are several unresolved issues, including what components should be included, the role of prophylactic drugs, and the overlap with general best care for hospitalised older people. (iii) Assessment: though there are several instruments for delirium screening and assessment, detection rates remain dismal. There are no clear solutions but routine screening embedded into clinical practice, and the development of new rapid screening instruments, offer potential. (iv) Management: studies are difficult given the heterogeneity of delirium and currently expert and comprehensive clinical care remains the main recommendation. Future studies may address the role of drugs for specific elements of delirium. In summary, though facing many challenges, the field continues to make progress, with several promising lines of enquiry and an expanding base of interest among researchers, clinicians and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: the number and proportion of adults diagnosed with HIV infection aged 50 years and older has risen. This study compares the effect of CD4 counts and anti-retroviral therapy (ART) on mortality rates among adults diagnosed aged ≥50 with those diagnosed at a younger age.Methods: retrospective cohort analysis of national surveillance reports of HIV-diagnosed adults (15 years and older) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The relative impacts of age, CD4 count at diagnosis and ART on mortality were determined in Cox proportional hazards models.Results: among 63,805 adults diagnosed with HIV between 2000 and 2009, 9% (5,683) were aged ≥50 years; older persons were more likely to be white, heterosexual and present with a CD4 count <200 cells/mm3 (48 versus 32% P < 0.01) and AIDS at diagnosis (19 versus 9%, P < 0.01). One-year mortality was higher in older adults (10 versus 3%, P < 0.01) and especially in those diagnosed with a CD4 <200 cells/mm3 left untreated (46 versus 15%, P < 0.01). While the relative mortality risk reduction from ART initiation at CD <200 cells/mm3 was similar in both age groups, the absolute risk difference was higher among older adults (40 versus 12% fewer deaths) such that the number needed to treat older adults to prevent one death was two compared with eight among younger adults.Conclusions: the magnitude of benefit from ART is greater in older adults than younger adults. Older persons should be considered as a target for HIV testing. Coupled with prompt treatment, earlier diagnosis is likely to reduce substantially deaths in this group. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]