Delirium Screening in Critically Ill Children: Secondary Analysis of the Multicenter PICU Up! Pilot Trial Dataset, 2019-2020.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000003555
Razvan Azamfirei, Deanna Behrens, Sofia Padilla, Kate Madden, Sarah Goldberg, Megan Geno, Mary-Jeanne Manning, Michelle Piole, Erik Madsen, Danielle Maue, Samer Abu-Sultaneh, Ronke Awojoodu, Nae-Yuh Wang, Dale M Needham, Karin Neufeld, Sapna R Kudchadkar
{"title":"Delirium Screening in Critically Ill Children: Secondary Analysis of the Multicenter PICU Up! Pilot Trial Dataset, 2019-2020.","authors":"Razvan Azamfirei, Deanna Behrens, Sofia Padilla, Kate Madden, Sarah Goldberg, Megan Geno, Mary-Jeanne Manning, Michelle Piole, Erik Madsen, Danielle Maue, Samer Abu-Sultaneh, Ronke Awojoodu, Nae-Yuh Wang, Dale M Needham, Karin Neufeld, Sapna R Kudchadkar","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the patient-level factors associated with performing daily delirium screening in PICUs with established delirium screening practices.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A secondary analysis of 2019-2020 prospective data from the baseline phase of the PICU Up! pilot stepped-wedge multicenter trial (NCT03860168).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Six PICUs in the United States.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>One thousand sixty-four patients who were admitted to a PICU for 3 or more days.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Of 1064 patients, 74% (95% CI, 71-76%) underwent delirium screening at least once during their PICU stay. On 57% of the 8965 eligible patient days, screening was conducted. The overall prevalence of delirium was 46% across all screened days, and 64% of screened patients experienced delirium at some point during their PICU stay. Factors associated with greater adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of increased daily delirium screening included PICU stay longer than 15 days compared with 1-3 days (aOR 3.36 [95% CI, 2.62-4.30]), invasive mechanical ventilation as opposed to room air (aOR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.32-2.12]), dexmedetomidine infusions (aOR 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.44]) and propofol infusions (aOR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.08-2.23]). Conversely, decreased aOR of daily delirium screening was associated with female gender (aOR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]), and the administration of continuous infusions of opioids (aOR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]) or ketamine (aOR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]). Neither patient age, the presence of family or physical restraints, or benzodiazepine infusions were associated with daily delirium screening rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the 2019-2020 PICU UP! cohort, across six PICUs, delirium screening occurred on only 57% of days, despite the presence of established practices. Female gender, patients in the early stages of their PICU stay, and patients not receiving mechanical ventilation were associated with lower odds of daily delirium screening. Our results highlight the need for structured quality improvement processes to both standardize and increase the frequency of delirium screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"880-888"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11449648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003555","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the patient-level factors associated with performing daily delirium screening in PICUs with established delirium screening practices.

Design: A secondary analysis of 2019-2020 prospective data from the baseline phase of the PICU Up! pilot stepped-wedge multicenter trial (NCT03860168).

Setting: Six PICUs in the United States.

Patients: One thousand sixty-four patients who were admitted to a PICU for 3 or more days.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Of 1064 patients, 74% (95% CI, 71-76%) underwent delirium screening at least once during their PICU stay. On 57% of the 8965 eligible patient days, screening was conducted. The overall prevalence of delirium was 46% across all screened days, and 64% of screened patients experienced delirium at some point during their PICU stay. Factors associated with greater adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of increased daily delirium screening included PICU stay longer than 15 days compared with 1-3 days (aOR 3.36 [95% CI, 2.62-4.30]), invasive mechanical ventilation as opposed to room air (aOR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.32-2.12]), dexmedetomidine infusions (aOR 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.44]) and propofol infusions (aOR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.08-2.23]). Conversely, decreased aOR of daily delirium screening was associated with female gender (aOR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]), and the administration of continuous infusions of opioids (aOR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]) or ketamine (aOR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]). Neither patient age, the presence of family or physical restraints, or benzodiazepine infusions were associated with daily delirium screening rates.

Conclusions: In the 2019-2020 PICU UP! cohort, across six PICUs, delirium screening occurred on only 57% of days, despite the presence of established practices. Female gender, patients in the early stages of their PICU stay, and patients not receiving mechanical ventilation were associated with lower odds of daily delirium screening. Our results highlight the need for structured quality improvement processes to both standardize and increase the frequency of delirium screening.

重症儿童谵妄筛查:多中心 PICU Up 的二次分析!试点试验数据集,2019-2020 年。
目的确定在已建立谵妄筛查实践的PICU中进行日常谵妄筛查的患者层面相关因素:对PICU Up!多中心试验(NCT03860168)基线阶段的2019-2020年前瞻性数据进行二次分析:美国六所PICU:干预措施:无:测量和主要结果在1064名患者中,74%(95% CI,71-76%)的患者在入住PICU期间至少接受了一次谵妄筛查。在符合条件的 8965 个住院日中,有 57% 的患者接受了筛查。在所有筛查天数中,谵妄的总体发生率为 46%,64% 的筛查患者在 PICU 住院期间的某个时间点出现过谵妄。与每日谵妄筛查增加的调整赔率 (aOR) 相关的因素包括:PICU 住院时间超过 15 天(与 1-3 天相比)(aOR 3.36 [95% CI, 2.62-4.30])、有创机械通气而非室内空气(aOR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.32-2.12])、右美托咪定输注(aOR 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.44])和异丙酚输注(aOR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.08-2.23])。相反,女性(aOR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96])、持续输注阿片类药物(aOR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90])或氯胺酮(aOR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79])会降低每日谵妄筛查的 aOR。患者年龄、有无家人或身体约束以及苯二氮卓类药物输注均与每日谵妄筛查率无关:在2019-2020年的PICU UP!队列中,在6个PICU中,谵妄筛查的发生率仅为57%,尽管有既定的惯例。女性性别、处于 PICU 住院早期的患者以及未接受机械通气的患者与每日谵妄筛查的几率较低有关。我们的研究结果突出表明,有必要通过结构化的质量改进流程来规范和提高谵妄筛查的频率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
991
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信