Risk factors and risk stratification approaches for delirium screening: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 systematic review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1111/acem.14939
Justine Seidenfeld, Sangil Lee, Luna Ragsdale, Christian H Nickel, Shan W Liu, Maura Kennedy
{"title":"Risk factors and risk stratification approaches for delirium screening: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 systematic review.","authors":"Justine Seidenfeld, Sangil Lee, Luna Ragsdale, Christian H Nickel, Shan W Liu, Maura Kennedy","doi":"10.1111/acem.14939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>As part of the Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines 2.0 project, we conducted a systematic review to find risk factors or risk stratification approaches that can be used to identify subsets of older adults who may benefit from targeted ED delirium screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search strategy was developed with a medical librarian, conducted in April 2021 and November 2022. Full-text studies of patients ≥65 years assessed for prevalent delirium in the ED were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the McMaster University Clarity Group tool. Outcomes measures pertained to the risk stratification method used. Due to heterogeneity of patient populations, risk stratification methods, and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 1878 unique citations, of which 13 were included. Six studies developed a novel delirium risk score with or without evaluation of specific risk factors, six studies evaluated specific risk factors only, and one study evaluated an existing nondelirium risk score for association with delirium. The most common risk factor was history of dementia, with odds ratios ranging from 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-8.9) to 18.33 (95% CI 8.08-43.64). Other risk factors that were consistently associated with increased risk of delirium included older age, use of certain medications (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, and opioids, among others), and functional impairments. Of the studies that developed novel risk scores, the reported area under the curve ranged from 0.77 to 0.90. Only two studies reported potential impact of the risk stratification tool on screening burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is significant heterogeneity, but results suggest that factors such as dementia, age over 75, and functional impairments should be used to identify older adults who are at highest risk for ED delirium. No studies evaluated implementation of a risk stratification method for delirium screening or evaluated patient-oriented outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14939","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: As part of the Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines 2.0 project, we conducted a systematic review to find risk factors or risk stratification approaches that can be used to identify subsets of older adults who may benefit from targeted ED delirium screening.

Methods: An electronic search strategy was developed with a medical librarian, conducted in April 2021 and November 2022. Full-text studies of patients ≥65 years assessed for prevalent delirium in the ED were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the McMaster University Clarity Group tool. Outcomes measures pertained to the risk stratification method used. Due to heterogeneity of patient populations, risk stratification methods, and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

Results: Our search yielded 1878 unique citations, of which 13 were included. Six studies developed a novel delirium risk score with or without evaluation of specific risk factors, six studies evaluated specific risk factors only, and one study evaluated an existing nondelirium risk score for association with delirium. The most common risk factor was history of dementia, with odds ratios ranging from 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-8.9) to 18.33 (95% CI 8.08-43.64). Other risk factors that were consistently associated with increased risk of delirium included older age, use of certain medications (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, and opioids, among others), and functional impairments. Of the studies that developed novel risk scores, the reported area under the curve ranged from 0.77 to 0.90. Only two studies reported potential impact of the risk stratification tool on screening burden.

Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity, but results suggest that factors such as dementia, age over 75, and functional impairments should be used to identify older adults who are at highest risk for ED delirium. No studies evaluated implementation of a risk stratification method for delirium screening or evaluated patient-oriented outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谵妄筛查的风险因素和风险分层方法:老年病学急诊科指南 2.0》系统综述。
目的:作为老年急诊科(ED)指南 2.0 项目的一部分,我们进行了一项系统性综述,以寻找可用于识别可能受益于有针对性的急诊科谵妄筛查的老年人子集的风险因素或风险分层方法:我们与医学图书管理员共同制定了电子检索策略,并于 2021 年 4 月和 2022 年 11 月进行了检索。纳入了对急诊室中≥65岁的患者进行流行性谵妄评估的全文研究。使用麦克马斯特大学清晰度小组工具评估偏倚风险。结果测量与所使用的风险分层方法有关。由于患者人群、风险分层方法和结果存在异质性,因此未进行荟萃分析:结果:我们的搜索结果产生了 1878 篇引文,其中 13 篇被收录。六项研究制定了新的谵妄风险评分标准,并对特定风险因素进行了评估或未进行评估;六项研究仅对特定风险因素进行了评估;一项研究评估了现有的非谵妄风险评分标准与谵妄的相关性。最常见的风险因素是痴呆史,几率比从 3.3(95% 置信区间 [CI] 1.2-8.9] 到 18.33(95% CI 8.08-43.64)不等。其他与谵妄风险增加相关的风险因素还包括年龄较大、使用某些药物(如抗精神病药物、抗抑郁药物和阿片类药物等)以及功能障碍。在制定了新风险评分的研究中,报告的曲线下面积从 0.77 到 0.90 不等。只有两项研究报告了风险分层工具对筛查负担的潜在影响:结论:虽然存在明显的异质性,但研究结果表明,痴呆、75 岁以上和功能障碍等因素应被用于识别急诊室谵妄风险最高的老年人。没有研究对谵妄筛查风险分层方法的实施情况进行评估,也没有研究对以患者为导向的结果进行评估。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Facilitators to implementing preventive health interventions for adolescents in the emergency department: A multicenter qualitative analysis. Risk-stratification tools for emergency department patients with syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE. Implications of inadequate communication: Emergency care for deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. Change in emergency department telehealth use for various indications, 2016 to 2020. Management of race, ethnicity, and language data in the pediatric emergency department.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1