Girard, Timothy D

Abstract Background Delirium is often underdiagnosed in clinical practice and is not routinely coded for billing. While manual chart review can identify delirium, it is labor-intensive and impractical for large-scale studies. Natural language processing (NLP) can analyze unstructured text in electronic health records (EHRs) to extract meaningful clinical information. Methods To support national integration of NLP for EHR-based delirium identification across different institutions, we launched the Delirium Interest Group within the national Evolve to Next-Gen Accrual to Clinical Trials (ENACT) NLP Working Group. This paper outlines our initial efforts to standardize, evaluate, and translate an NLP-based delirium detection model into the i2b2/ENACT platform. Results Multisite contextual inquiry identified several key challenges, including variations in local screening practices (eg, tools used, documentation frequency, and quality control), the need for harmonized definitions in the context of EHRs, and the complexity of modeling temporal logic. Multisite NLP evaluation revealed variable performance degradation driven by differences in delirium screening practices, clinical documentation patterns and semantics, and note syntactic structures. Conclusion Our work represents an important first step toward enabling scalable and standardized NLP-based delirium detection across institutions. By engaging diverse institutions through the ENACT NLP Working Group, we identified shared challenges and site-specific variations that impact model implementation and performance. Our collaborative approach enabled the development of a more robust framework for delirium identification across heterogeneous EHR systems. Future efforts will build on this foundation to enhance the validity, usability, and translational impact of delirium detection.

RATIONALE: Critically ill adults are at risk for a variety of distressing and consequential symptoms both during and after an ICU stay. Management of these symptoms can directly influence outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to update and expand the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. PANEL DESIGN: The interprofessional inclusive guidelines task force was composed of 24 individuals including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and ICU survivors. The task force developed evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: The task force focused on five main content areas as they pertain to adult ICU patients: anxiety (new topic), agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption. Using the GRADE approach, we conducted a rigorous systematic review for each population, intervention, control, and outcome question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, assessed the quality of evidence, and then performed the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. In adult patients admitted to the ICU, the task force issued conditional recommendations to use dexmedetomidine over propofol for sedation, provide enhanced mobilization/rehabilitation over usual mobilization/rehabilitation, and administer melatonin. The task force was unable to issue recommendations on the administration of benzodiazepines to treat anxiety, and the use of antipsychotics to treat delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines task force provided recommendations for pharmacologic management of agitation/sedation and sleep, and nonpharmacologic management of immobility in critically ill adults. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient’s clinical status.

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.

Abstract An estimated 14.1 million patients survive sepsis each year. Many survivors experience poor long-term outcomes, including new or worsened neuropsychological impairment; physical disability; and vulnerability to further health deterioration, including recurrent infection, cardiovascular events, and acute renal failure. However, clinical trials and guidelines have focused on shorter-term survival, so there are few data on promoting longer-term recovery. To address this unmet need, the International Sepsis Forum convened a colloquium in February 2018 titled “Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship.” The goals were to identify gaps and limitations of current research and shorter- and longer-term priorities for understanding and enhancing sepsis survivorship. Twenty-six experts from eight countries participated. The top short-term priorities identified by nominal group technique culminating in formal voting were to better leverage existing databases for research, develop and disseminate educational resources on postsepsis morbidity, and partner with sepsis survivors to define and achieve research priorities. The top longer-term priorities were to study mechanisms of long-term morbidity through large cohort studies with deep phenotyping, build a harmonized global sepsis registry to facilitate enrollment in cohorts and trials, and complete detailed longitudinal follow-up to characterize the diversity of recovery experiences. This perspective reviews colloquium discussions, the identified priorities, and current initiatives to address them.