Assessing Delirium in Patients With Neurological Diseases.

Maja Gjerløv Nisgaard, Signe Vestergaard Boesen, Janet Jensen
{"title":"Assessing Delirium in Patients With Neurological Diseases.","authors":"Maja Gjerløv Nisgaard, Signe Vestergaard Boesen, Janet Jensen","doi":"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication during hospitalization. Its consequences are severe, including reduced function, delayed rehabilitation, dementia, institutionalization, and death. Assessing delirium in neurological patients can be challenging due to the impact of neurological deficits. Therefore, the aim was to investigate the agreement between 2 delirium screening tools, factors associated with delirium, and assessing delirium in neurological patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in 2 neurological units, using daily delirium screening. Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and 2 versions of the Confusion Assessment Method were used to asses delirium in adult patients without baseline dementia, alcohol/drug detoxification, or palliative care. Descriptive analyses determined the number of delirium scores, and the analytical analyses were logistic regressions and a κ coefficient. RESULTS: The agreement between the screening tools was found to be substantial (κ = 0.71). Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for a positive delirium screening were home care before admission (Confusion Assessment Method: odds ratio [OR], 4.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.67-10.63]; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist: OR, 6.14 [95% CI, 2.85-13.23]) and aphasia/dysarthria (Confusion Assessment Method: OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 1.32-6.81]; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist: OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.3-5.87]). In total, 18.7% (n = 20/107) of the screening scores were positive. Specifically, the Confusion Assessment Method showed positive scores for 13.0% (n = 14/107) of participants, whereas the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist showed positive scores for 16.8% (n = 18/107). CONCLUSION: The screening tools had a substantial degree of agreement. Therefore, nurses can use both screening tools to detect delirium in patients with neurological disorders. However, care should be taken in patients with aphasia to avoid misclassification with the Brief-Confusion Assessment Method. Moreover, special attention should be directed toward patients with language difficulties such as aphasia/dysarthria and those who received home care services before admission. These areas warrant further investigation in clinical practice and future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94240,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","volume":" ","pages":"157-163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication during hospitalization. Its consequences are severe, including reduced function, delayed rehabilitation, dementia, institutionalization, and death. Assessing delirium in neurological patients can be challenging due to the impact of neurological deficits. Therefore, the aim was to investigate the agreement between 2 delirium screening tools, factors associated with delirium, and assessing delirium in neurological patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in 2 neurological units, using daily delirium screening. Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and 2 versions of the Confusion Assessment Method were used to asses delirium in adult patients without baseline dementia, alcohol/drug detoxification, or palliative care. Descriptive analyses determined the number of delirium scores, and the analytical analyses were logistic regressions and a κ coefficient. RESULTS: The agreement between the screening tools was found to be substantial (κ = 0.71). Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for a positive delirium screening were home care before admission (Confusion Assessment Method: odds ratio [OR], 4.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.67-10.63]; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist: OR, 6.14 [95% CI, 2.85-13.23]) and aphasia/dysarthria (Confusion Assessment Method: OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 1.32-6.81]; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist: OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.3-5.87]). In total, 18.7% (n = 20/107) of the screening scores were positive. Specifically, the Confusion Assessment Method showed positive scores for 13.0% (n = 14/107) of participants, whereas the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist showed positive scores for 16.8% (n = 18/107). CONCLUSION: The screening tools had a substantial degree of agreement. Therefore, nurses can use both screening tools to detect delirium in patients with neurological disorders. However, care should be taken in patients with aphasia to avoid misclassification with the Brief-Confusion Assessment Method. Moreover, special attention should be directed toward patients with language difficulties such as aphasia/dysarthria and those who received home care services before admission. These areas warrant further investigation in clinical practice and future studies.

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
评估神经系统疾病患者的谵妄。
摘要:背景:谵妄是住院期间常见的并发症。其后果十分严重,包括功能减退、康复延迟、痴呆、入院治疗和死亡。由于神经功能缺损的影响,对神经系统患者的谵妄进行评估具有挑战性。因此,本文旨在研究两种谵妄筛查工具之间的一致性、与谵妄相关的因素以及对神经科患者谵妄的评估。方法:这项前瞻性观察研究在两个神经科病房进行,采用每日谵妄筛查。使用重症监护谵妄筛查核对表和两种版本的意识模糊评估方法,对无痴呆症基线、无酒精/药物戒毒或无姑息治疗的成年患者进行谵妄评估。描述性分析确定了谵妄评分的数量,分析采用了逻辑回归和κ系数。结果:筛查工具之间的一致性很好(κ = 0.71)。逻辑回归分析表明,谵妄筛查阳性的风险因素是入院前的家庭护理(意识模糊评估法:几率比[OR],4.21[95% 置信区间(CI),1.67-10.63];重症监护谵妄筛查清单:OR,6.14[95% 置信区间(CI),1.67-10.63]):OR,6.14 [95% CI,2.85-13.23])和失语/构音障碍(混淆评估法:OR,4.9 [95% CI,1.32-6.81];重症监护谵妄筛查核对表:OR,2.76 [95% CI,1.3-5.87])。总共有 18.7% (n = 20/107)的筛查得分呈阳性。具体来说,13.0%(n = 14/107)的参与者在 "意识模糊评估方法 "中获得了阳性分数,而 16.8%(n = 18/107)的参与者在 "重症监护谵妄筛查核对表 "中获得了阳性分数。结论:两种筛查工具在很大程度上是一致的。因此,护士可以使用这两种筛查工具来检测神经系统疾病患者的谵妄。不过,对于失语症患者,应注意避免使用 "简易融合评估法 "进行错误分类。此外,还应特别注意有语言障碍(如失语/构音障碍)的患者和入院前接受过家庭护理服务的患者。这些方面值得在临床实践和未来研究中进一步探讨。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a Nurse-Initiated Protocol to Improve Enteral Medication Administration Documentation in Stroke Patients. Methods for Developing Neuroscience Nursing Clinical Practice Guidelines. Development of an Acute Stroke Care Seeking Framework. Exploring Perspectives on Stroke Standard Set Data Collection: A Qualitative Descriptive Study. Measures and Influencers of Reintegration for the Stroke Patient: A Systematic Review.
×
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