Assessment of delirium in the intensive care unit: nursing practices and perceptions.
ABSTRACT Despite practice guidelines promoting delirium assessment in intensive care, few data exist regarding current delirium assessment practices among nurses and how these practices compare with those for sedation assessment.
To identify current practices and perceptions of intensive care nurses regarding delirium assessment and to compare practices for assessing delirium with practices for assessing sedation.
A paper/Web-based survey was administered to 601 staff nurses working in 16 intensive care units at 5 acute care hospitals with sedation guidelines specifying delirium assessment in the Boston, Massachusetts area.
Overall, 331 nurses (55%) responded. Only 3% ranked delirium as the most important condition to evaluate, compared with altered level of consciousness (44%), presence of pain (23%), or improper placement of an invasive device (21%). Delirium assessment was less common than sedation assessment (47% vs 98%, P < .001) and was more common among nurses who worked in medical intensive care units (55% vs 40%, P = .03) and at academic centers (53% vs 13%, P < .001). Preferred methods for assessing delirium included assessing ability to follow commands (78%), checking for agitation-related events (71%), the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (36%), the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (11%), and psychiatric consultation (9%). Barriers to assessment included intubation (38%), complexity of the tool for assessing delirium (34%), and sedation level (13%).
Practice and perceptions of delirium assessment vary widely among critical care nurses despite the presence of institutional sedation guidelines that promote delirium assessment.
Article: Dexmedetomidine vs. haloperidol in delirious, agitated, intubated patients: a randomised open-label trial.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Agitated delirium is common in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, and is often treated with haloperidol despite concerns about safety and efficacy. Use of conventional sedatives to control agitation can preclude extubation. Dexmedetomidine, a novel sedative and anxiolytic agent, may have particular utility in these patients. We sought to compare the efficacy of haloperidol and dexmedetomidine in facilitating extubation. We conducted a randomised, open-label, parallel-groups pilot trial in the medical and surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Twenty patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in whom extubation was not possible solely because of agitated delirium were randomised to receive an infusion of either haloperidol 0.5 to 2 mg/hour or dexmedetomidine 0.2 to 0.7 microg/kg/hr, with or without loading doses of 2.5 mg haloperidol or 1 mug/kg dexmedetomidine, according to clinician preference. Dexmedetomidine significantly shortened median time to extubation from 42.5 (IQR 23.2 to 117.8) to 19.9 (IQR 7.3 to 24) hours (P = 0.016). Dexmedetomidine significantly decreased ICU length of stay, from 6.5 (IQR 4 to 9) to 1.5 (IQR 1 to 3) days (P = 0.004) after study drug commencement. Of patients who required ongoing propofol sedation, the proportion of time propofol was required was halved in those who received dexmedetomidine (79.5% (95% CI 61.8 to 97.2%) vs. 41.2% (95% CI 0 to 88.1%) of the time intubated; P = 0.05). No patients were reintubated; three receiving haloperidol could not be successfully extubated and underwent tracheostomy. One patient prematurely discontinued haloperidol due to QTc interval prolongation. In this preliminary pilot study, we found dexmedetomidine a promising agent for the treatment of ICU-associated delirious agitation, and we suggest this warrants further testing in a definitive double-blind multi-centre trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00505804.Critical care (London, England) 06/2009; 13(3):R75. · 4.61 Impact Factor
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Delirium is a frequent source of morbidity in intensive care units (ICUs). Most data on its epidemiology is from single-center studies. Our aim was to conduct a multicenter study to evaluate the epidemiology of delirium in the ICU. A 1-day point-prevalence study was undertaken in 104 ICUs from 11 countries in South and North America and Spain. In total, 975 patients were screened, and 497 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were enrolled (median age, 62 years; 52.5% men; 16.7% and 19.9% for ICU and hospital mortality); 64% were admitted to the ICU because of medical causes, and sepsis was the main diagnosis (n = 76; 15.3%). In total, 265 patients were sedated with the Richmond agitation and sedation scale (RASS) deeper than -3, and only 232 (46.6%) patients could be evaluated with the confusion-assessment method for the ICU. The prevalence of delirium was 32.3%. Compared with patients without delirium, those with the diagnosis of delirium had a greater severity of illness at admission, demonstrated by higher sequential organ-failure assessment (SOFA (P = 0.004)) and simplified acute physiology score 3 (SAPS3) scores (P < 0.0001). Delirium was associated with increased ICU (20% versus 5.7%; P = 0.002) and hospital mortality (24 versus 8.3%; P = 0.0017), and longer ICU (P < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (22 (11 to 40) versus 7 (4 to 18) days; P < 0.0001). Previous use of midazolam (P = 0.009) was more frequent in patients with delirium. On multivariate analysis, delirium was independently associated with increased ICU mortality (OR = 3.14 (1.26 to 7.86); CI, 95%) and hospital mortality (OR = 2.5 (1.1 to 5.7); CI, 95%). In this 1-day international study, delirium was frequent and associated with increased mortality and ICU LOS. The main modifiable risk factors associated with the diagnosis of delirium were the use of invasive devices and sedatives (midazolam).Critical care (London, England) 11/2010; 14(6):R210. · 4.61 Impact Factor