Caplan, Gideon A.

Abstract Background Delirium, an acute brain dysfunction, is proposed to be highly prevalent in clinical care and shown to significantly increase the risk of mortality and dementia. Objectives To report on the global prevalence of clinically documented delirium and delirium-related clinical practices in wards caring for paediatric and adult patients in healthcare facilities. Design A prospective, cross-sectional, 39-question survey completed on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Participants Clinicians or researchers with access to clinical data. Main Outcome and Measure The primary outcome was the prevalence of clinically documented delirium at 8:00 a.m. (4 h) and 8:00 p.m. (±4 h). Secondary outcomes included delirium-related care practices and barriers to use. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multilevel modelling was completed. Results 1664 wards submitted surveys from 44 countries, reporting on delirium assessments at 8:00 a.m. (n = 36 048) and 8:00 p.m. (n = 32 867); 61% reported use of validated delirium assessment tools. At 8:00 a.m., 18% (n = 2788/15 458) and at 8:00 p.m., 17.7% (n = 2454/13 860) were delirium positive. Top prevention measures were pain management (86.7%), mobilisation (81.4%) and adequate fluids (80.4%). Frequently reported pharmacologic interventions were benzodiazepines (52.7%) and haloperidol (46.2%). Top barriers included the shortage of staff (54.3%), lack of time to educate staff (48.6%) and missing knowledge about delirium (38%). Conclusion and Relevance In this study, approximately one out of five patients were reported as delirious. The reported high use of benzodiazepines needs further evaluation as it is not aligned with best-practice recommendations. Findings provide a benchmark for future quality improvement projects and research.

Abstract Background Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Objective To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. Design Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Setting Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Methods Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. Results Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289–9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. Conclusion Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.

AbstractBACKGROUNDDelirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long‐term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology.METHODSThe Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts.RESULTSMeeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium‐spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations.DISCUSSIONThe DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes.Highlights Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning.

Despite many studies of potential delirium biomarkers, delirium pathophysiology remains unclear. Evidence shows that the quality of reporting delirium biomarker studies is sub-optimal. Better reporting of delirium biomarker studies is needed to understand delirium pathophysiology better. To improve robustness, transparency and uniformity of delirium biomarker study reports, the REDEEMS (Reporting Essentials for DElirium bioMarker Studies) guideline was developed by an international group of delirium researchers through a three-stage process, including a systematic review, a three-round Delphi study, and a follow-up consensus meeting. This process resulted in a 9-item guideline to inform delirium fluid biomarker studies. To enhance implementation of the REDEEMS guideline, this Explanation and Elaboration paper provides a detailed explanation of each item. We anticipate that the REDEEMS guideline will help to accelerate our understanding of delirium pathophysiology by improving the reporting of delirium biomarker research and, consequently the capacity to synthesise results across studies.