评估谵妄的恢复:参与谵妄护理的医疗保健专业人员的国际调查。

Erin Noble, Haruno McCartney, Alasdair M MacLullich, Susan D Shenkin, Graciela Muniz-Terrera, Jonathan J Evans, Daniel Davis, Daisy Sandeman, Zoë Tieges
{"title":"评估谵妄的恢复:参与谵妄护理的医疗保健专业人员的国际调查。","authors":"Erin Noble,&nbsp;Haruno McCartney,&nbsp;Alasdair M MacLullich,&nbsp;Susan D Shenkin,&nbsp;Graciela Muniz-Terrera,&nbsp;Jonathan J Evans,&nbsp;Daniel Davis,&nbsp;Daisy Sandeman,&nbsp;Zoë Tieges","doi":"10.56392/001c.56675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":72776,"journal":{"name":"Delirium communications","volume":"1 ","pages":"56675"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614362/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.\",\"authors\":\"Erin Noble,&nbsp;Haruno McCartney,&nbsp;Alasdair M MacLullich,&nbsp;Susan D Shenkin,&nbsp;Graciela Muniz-Terrera,&nbsp;Jonathan J Evans,&nbsp;Daniel Davis,&nbsp;Daisy Sandeman,&nbsp;Zoë Tieges\",\"doi\":\"10.56392/001c.56675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Delirium communications\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"56675\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614362/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Delirium communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56392/001c.56675\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Delirium communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56392/001c.56675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:谵妄护理的一个关键部分是确定谵妄发作是否已经消退。然而,对于临床医生应该使用何种评估来评估谵妄恢复,尚无明确的证据或共识。目的:评价目前谵妄专家对谵妄恢复评估的看法。设计:以在线问卷为基础的调查,向参与谵妄护理的国际医疗保健专业人员分发。方法:调查涵盖了评估恢复的方法,不同症状域对捕获恢复的重要性,以及推荐监测谵妄恢复的局部指导或途径。结果:收集了199名临床医生的反馈。受访者分别来自英国(51%)、美国(13%)、澳大利亚(9%)、加拿大(7%)、爱尔兰(7%)和其他16个国家。大多数受访者是医生(52%)和护士(27%)。临床医生主要在老年科(52%)、icu(21%)和急性评估单位(17%)工作。94%的应答者表示,他们进行重复谵妄评估(即,≥2次)以监测谵妄恢复。被认为对捕获恢复最重要的症状域是:觉醒(92%)、注意力不集中(84%)、运动障碍(84%)、幻觉和妄想(83%)。评估恢复最常用的工具是4a测试(4AT, 51%),其次是混淆评估法(CAM, 26%), ICU的CAM (CAM-ICU, 17%)和谵妄中的单一问题(SQiD, 11%)。28%的人只使用临床特征。不到一半(45%)的临床医生报告有建议监测谵妄恢复的当地指导。结论:调查结果表明,尽管围绕捕获谵妄恢复的关键领域达成共识,但用于重复谵妄评估的工具和方法缺乏标准化。这些发现强调需要进一步的研究来建立评估谵妄恢复的最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Assessing Recovery from Delirium: An International Survey of Healthcare Professionals Involved in Delirium Care.

Background: A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery.

Objective: To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery.

Design: Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care.

Methods: The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery.

Results: Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 'A's Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery.

Conclusions: The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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