Impact, scope of practice and competencies of Advanced Practice Nurses within APN-led models of care for young and middle-aged adult patients with multimorbidity and/or complex chronic conditions in hospital settings: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The increase of young and middle-aged adult patients with multimorbid and/or complex chronic conditions has created new challenges for healthcare systems and services. Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) play an essential role in treating these patients because of their expertise and advanced nursing skills. Little is known about competencies, scope of practice and impact of APNs within APN-led care models for young and middle-aged adult patients with multimorbidity and/or complex chronic conditions in hospital settings. The objective of this scoping review is to describe the impact, scope of practice and competencies of APNs within APN-led care models for young and middle-aged adult patients in hospital settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted using the methodological framework proffered by Arksey and O'Malley, incorporating the methodological enhancement of Levac et al. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for Scoping Reviews' guidelines of Tricco et al. Systematic research will be conducted in the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), CENTRAL and PsycINFO (Ovid) using all recognised keywords, index terms and search strings. Grey literature will be scanned. Bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Studies will be selected based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, screened by title and abstracts. Data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors. Disagreements in evaluation will be discussed and resolved by consensus. Results will be reported in the form of descriptive tables. Narrative summery is used to present the results of the review in the context of the study's objectives and questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval. The review will be handed in as part of a doctoral thesis and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER OSF: 4PM38.

Detecting delirium in nursing home residents using the Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium (I-AGeD): a validation pilot study.

PURPOSE: Early delirium detection in nursing home residents is vital to prevent adverse outcomes. Despite the potential of structured delirium screening tools to enhance delirium detection, they are rarely used in nursing homes. To promote delirium screening tools in nursing homes, they should be easy to integrate into the daily routine of care workers. The I-AGeD, was developed as a simple and easily understandable tool to detect delirium in older adults. The aims of this study were to record the prevalence of delirium, to investigate the feasibility of the I-AGeD, and to compare these results with the DSM-5 as the reference standard. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional prospective single-center pilot study. Seven registered nurses assessed the participants with the I-AGeD. The research assistant conducted delirium assessments based on the DSM-5 criteria, to identify delirium symptoms for the same participants. The feasibility test was verified using a five-point Likert scale ranging from very easy to very difficult. RESULTS: 85 nursing home residents participated in the study. A delirium prevalence of 5.9% was found. The sensitivity was 60% and specificity 94% at a cut point of ≥ 4 to indicate delirium. The feasibility test showed that the 10 items of the I-AGeD were easy or very easy to answer. CONCLUSION: The I-AGeD showed an acceptable performance to assess delirium in nursing home residents. Additionally, it was found feasible and due to its brevity the I-AGeD could easily be integrated into the routine of daily care in nursing homes.

Comparing performance on the Months of the Year Backwards test in hospitalised patients with delirium, dementia, and no cognitive impairment: an exploratory study.

PURPOSE: To investigate performance of the Months of the Year Backwards (MOTYB) test in older hospitalised patients with delirium, dementia, and no cognitive impairment. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a case-control study of 149 hospitalised patients aged ≥ 65 years with delirium [with or without dementia (N = 50)], dementia [without delirium (N = 46)], and no cognitive impairment (N = 53). Verbatim transcripts of MOTYB audio recordings were analysed to determine group differences in response patterns. RESULTS: In the total sample [median age 85y (IQR 80-88), 82% female], patients with delirium were more often unable to recite months backward to November (36/50 = 72%) than patients with dementia (21/46 = 46%; p < 0.01) and both differed significantly from patients without cognitive impairment (2/53 = 4%; p's < 0.001). 121/149 (81%) of patients were able to engage with the test. Patients with delirium were more often unable to engage with MOTYB (23/50 = 46%; e.g., due to reduced arousal) than patients with dementia (5/46 = 11%; p < 0.001); both groups differed significantly (p's < 0.001) from patients without cognitive impairment (0/53 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between patients with delirium (2/27 = 7%) and patients with dementia (8/41 = 20%) in completing MOTYB to January, but performance in both groups differed (p < 0.001 and p < 0.02, respectively) from patients without cognitive impairment (35/53 = 66%). CONCLUSION: Delirium was associated with inability to engage with MOTYB and low rates of completion. In patients able to engage with the test, error-free completion rates were low in delirium and dementia. Recording of engagement and patterns of errors may add useful information to MOTYB scoring.

Experience of adult patients and professionals with a program for the prevention of alcohol withdrawal delirium in the acute care setting-A case study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of adult patients and professionals with the prevention of alcohol withdrawal delirium program DESIGN AND METHODS: A simple, descriptive case study with several units of analysis was chosen as the study design. PARTICIPANTS: Six patients, 15 nurses, one family member, and two physicians METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and observation sessions. The Braun and Clarke thematic analysis method was used for the data analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: "Talking about alcohol," "Monitoring withdrawal symptoms," and "Collaboration with the Advanced Practice Nurse for delirium management." CONCLUSION: The program is highly beneficial in this field of practice and is widely accepted by all those involved. The Advanced Practice Nurse played an important role to facilitate the processes.

An advanced practice nurse-led delirium consultation service reduces delirium severity and length of stay in orthopedic patients: A nonrandomized posttest only evaluation study.

PURPOSE: Delirium is an acute neuropsychiatric disorder and is a common and serious complication during hospitalization for older people. This study evaluated the value of an advanced practice nurse (APN)-led delirium consultation service on patient outcomes DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 137 patients over 65 years, hospitalized between 2012 and 2015 in a tertiary care setting in Switzerland, who underwent orthopedic surgery and experienced delirium. FINDINGS: Of the 137 eligible patients, 53 received the delirium consultation service and 84 received the standard care. The group receiving "early" delirium consultation experienced significantly reduced delirium severity over the course of time and the shortest length of stay. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The APN-led delirium consultation service had a positive effect on patient outcomes.

Optimizing the month of the year backwards test for delirium screening of older patients in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Different scoring methods exist for the Month of the Year Backward Test (MBT), which is designed to detect inattention, the core feature of delirium. When used as a part of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED), each error in the MBT scores one point. Because this scoring procedure is complex, we aimed to simplify the scoring method of the MBT. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a single center prospective validation study of the mCAM-ED comprising a sample of Emergency Department (ED) patients aged 65 or older presenting to our ED. DATA COLLECTION: Research assistants (RAs) who were trained nurses conducted the MBT. Geriatricians conducted the reference standard delirium assessment within 1 h of the RA. RESULTS: For the scoring method "number of errors", optimal performance according the Youden index was achieved when 8 or more errors were reached resulting in an overall sensitivity of 0.95 and overall specificity of 0.94. The scoring method "number of errors in combination with time needed" resulted in a comparable result with minimally lower positive likelihood ratios. For the scoring method "last month in correct order", optimal performance according the Youden index was achieved with the month of September resulting in an overall sensitivity of 0.90 and an overall specificity of 0.89. DISCUSSION: We suggest omitting the factor time and using a more practical scoring method with good performance: "last month in correct order" with the requirement to reach September to rule out delirium.

Impairments in balance and mobility identify delirium in patients with comorbid dementia.

ABSTRACTDiagnosing delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) remains challenging because of a lack of specific tools, though motor dysfunction in delirium has been relatively under-explored. This study aimed to use dysfunction in balance and mobility (with the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance And Mobility: HABAM) to identify DSD. This is a cross-sectional multicenter study, recruiting consecutive patients ≥70 years admitted to five acute or rehabilitation hospitals in Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland. Delirium was diagnosed using DSM-5 criteria; dementia was determined by the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Questionnaire of Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. HABAM score was recorded at admission. Out of 114 patients (mean age ± SD = 82 ± 7; 54% female), dementia alone was present in 24.6% (n = 28), delirium alone in 18.4% (n = 21) and DSD in 27.2% (n = 31). Patients with DSD had a mean HABAM score 7 points greater than those with dementia alone (19.8 ± 8.7 vs 12.5 ± 9.5; p < 0.001); 70% of participants with DSD were correctly identified using the HABAM at a cut off of 22 (sensitivity 61%, specificity 79%, AUC = 0.76). Individuals with delirium have worse motor function than those without delirium, even in the context of comorbid dementia. Measuring motor function using the HABAM in older people at admission may help to diagnose DSD.

Nurses' Recognition of Hospitalized Older Patients With Delirium and Cognitive Impairment Using the Delirium Observation Screening Scale: A Prospective Comparison Study.

The aim of the current study was to report findings about delirium detection when ward nurses screened for delirium in patients with cognitive impairment using the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) in comparison to the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). A secondary analysis was performed of research data collected in 2010 at a Swiss tertiary university hospital. During the first 5 days after admission, patients 70 and older with cognitive impairment were screened for delirium using the DOSS. Throughout patients' hospital stay, research assistants also completed the CAM on a daily basis. A total of 138 patients who did not have delirium initially participated in the study. Of these patients, 44 (32%) developed delirium with a median duration of 3 days (Q1 = 1.25; Q3 = 5.00). Ward nurses correctly identified delirium using the DOSS in 56% of cases (sensitivity) and no delirium in 92% of cases (specificity). Although the DOSS was 100% correct in detecting patients with hyperactive delirium, the identification rate decreased to 60% for patients with mixed delirium subtype and 38% for patients with hypoactive delirium. Delirium screening using observational methods may be insufficiently sensitive and should be supplemented with a formal attention test. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 44(12), 35-43.].

Screening and detection of delirium in older ED patients: performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). A two-step tool.

Delirium is frequent in older Emergency Department (ED) patients, but detection rates for delirium in the ED are low. To aid in identifying delirium, we developed and implemented a two-step systematic delirium screening and assessment tool in our ED: the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). Components of the mCAM-ED include: (1) screening for inattention, the main feature of delirium, which was performed with the Months Backwards Test (MBT); (2) delirium assessment based on a structured interview with questions from the Mental Status Questionnaire by Kahn et al. and the Comprehension Test by Hart et al. The aims of our study are (1) to investigate the performance criteria of the mCAM-ED tool in a consecutive sample of older ED patients, (2) to evaluate the performance of the mCAM-ED in patients with and without dementia and (3) to test whether this tool is efficient in keeping evaluation time to a minimum and reducing screening and assessment burden on the patient. For this prospective validation study, we recruited a consecutive sample of ED patients aged 65 and older during an 11-day period in November 2015. Trained nurses assessed patients with the mCAM-ED. Results were compared to the reference standard [i.e. the geriatricians' delirium diagnosis based on the criteria of the Text Revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)]. Performance criteria were computed. We included 286 consecutive ED patients aged 65 and older. The median age was 80.02 (Q1 = 72.15; Q3 = 86.76), 58.7% of included patients were female, 14.3% had dementia. We found a delirium prevalence of 7.0%. In patients with dementia, specificity and positive likelihood ratio were lower. When compared to the reference standard, delirium assessment with the mCAM-ED has a 0.98 specificity and a 39.9 positive likelihood ratio. In 80.0% of all cases, the first step of the mCAM-ED, i.e. screening for inattention with the MBT, took less than 30 s. On average, the complete mCAM-ED assessment required 3.2 (SD 2.0), 5.6 (SD 3.2), and 6.2 (SD 2.3) minutes in cognitively unimpaired patients, patients with dementia and patients with dementia or delirium, respectively. The mCAM-ED is able to efficiently rule out delirium as well as confirm the diagnosis of delirium in elderly patients with and without dementia and applies minimal screening and assessment burden on the patient.

Prevalence, influencing factors, screening and diagnosis of delirium at stationary hospitalised patients in a Swiss acute Hospital. A pilot study / Prävalenz, Einflussfaktoren, Screening und Diagnose eines Delirs bei stationär hospitalisierten Patientinnen und Patienten in einem Schweizer Akutspital. Eine Pilotstudie

Background: Deliria have a massive effect on patients, from increased duration of hospitalization to higher mortality. Risk factors such as age, deprivation of substances, immobility as well as stress are known among others. Particularly in vulnerable persons minor factors can lead to a delirium. European studies report a prevalence rate between 17 % and 22 %, but can't be compared to the Swiss hospital system. No national delirium prevalence data in acute hospitals is known. Aim: On the one hand to measure the delirium prevalence in an acute hospital, to elaborate patient characteristics of delirium patients based on group comparison and to test sensitivity and specifity of the applied instruments, on the other hand to get information about the practicality of the study execution. Method: Delirium point prevalence measurement has been conducted in a prospective cross-sectional study. On one determined day data of patients have been collected by nurses in an acute hospital. Results: A prevalence point rate of 14 % (6 / 43) based on CAM has been identified. Significant differences were found between the groups in respect of age, discipline, number of ICD diagnoses, care dependency and in all the three delirium instruments. Delirium patients were not only longer hospitalized but had almost twice as many ICD diagnosed, were high-maintenance patients and mostly didn't claim to be in pain. Conclusion: This is the first prevalence study in a Swiss acute hospital. The utilized instruments are reliable and the study execution is practicable and could be conducted with a larger sample. Most known risk factors were confirmed.

Performance of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale in identifying delirium in older ED patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium in older emergency department (ED) patients is associated with severe negative patient outcomes and its detection is challenging for ED clinicians. ED clinicians need easy tools for delirium detection. We aimed to test the performance criteria of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (mRASS) in identifying delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: The mRASS was applied to a sample of consecutive ED patients aged 65 or older by specially trained nurses during an 11-day period in November 2015. Reference standard delirium diagnosis was based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) criteria, and was established by geriatricians. Performance criteria were computed. Analyses were repeated in the subsamples of patients with and without dementia. RESULTS: Of 285 patients, 20 (7.0%) had delirium and 41 (14.4%) had dementia. The sensitivity of an mRASS other than 0 to detect delirium was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.48; 0.85), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.90; 0.96), positive likelihood ratio 10.31 (95% CI 6.06; 17.51), negative likelihood ratio 0.32 (95% CI 0.16; 0.63). In the sub-sample of patients with dementia, sensitivity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 0.79), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.66; 0.93), positive likelihood ratio 3.27 (95% CI 1.25; 8.59), negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.28; 1.06). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of the mRASS to detect delirium in older ED patients was low, especially in patients with dementia. Therefore its usefulness as a stand-alone screening tool is limited.

Detecting delirium superimposed on dementia: diagnostic accuracy of a simple combined arousal and attention testing procedure.

BACKGROUND: Detecting delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) can be challenging because assessment partly relies on cognitive tests that may be abnormal in both conditions. We hypothesized that a combined arousal and attention testing procedure would accurately detect DSD. METHODS: Patients aged ≥70 years were recruited from five hospitals across Europe. Delirium was diagnosed by physicians using DSM-5 criteria using information from nurses, carers, and medical records. Dementia was ascertained by the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Arousal was measured using the Observational Scale of Level of Arousal (OSLA), which assesses eye opening, eye contact, posture, movement, and communication. Attention was measured by participants signaling each time an "A" was heard when "S-A-V-E-A-H-A-A-R-T" was read out. RESULTS: The sample included 114 persons (mean age 82 years (SD 7); 54% women). Dementia alone was present in 25% (n = 28), delirium alone in 18% (n = 21), DSD in 27% (n = 31), and neither in 30% (n = 34). Arousal and attention was assessed in n = 109 (96%). Using OSLA, 83% participants were correctly identified as having delirium (sensitivity 85%, specificity 82%, AUROC 0.92). The attention task correctly classified 76% of participants with delirium (sensitivity 90%, specificity 64%, AUROC 0.80). Combining scores correctly classified 91% of participants with delirium (sensitivity 84%, specificity 92%, AUROC 0.94). Diagnostic accuracy remained high in the subgroup with dementia (93% correctly classified, sensitivity 94%, specificity 92%, AUROC 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: This combined arousal-attention assessment to detect DSD was brief yet had high diagnostic accuracy. Such an approach could have clinical utility for diagnosing DSD.

A systematic nurse-led approach to withdrawal risk screening, prevention and treatment among inpatients with an alcohol use disorder in an ear, nose, throat and jaw surgery department-A formative evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Among patients with head and neck cancer comorbid alcohol use disorder is frequent which contributes to higher risk of developing perioperative alcohol withdrawal syndrome/delirium or delirium due to medical conditions. Although guidelines emphasize prevention and treatment of alcohol withdrawal in hospitalized patients, a validated systematic approach for management of these patients is still lacking. Our aim was to formatively evaluate our newly developed systematic approach in view of nurses' adherence to screening patients for regular alcohol consumption and managing their withdrawal symptoms using the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised. METHODS: We conducted a formative evaluation to improve the project's design and performance and used a retrospective chart review in a consecutive sample of all adult inpatients with head and neck cancer being assigned for surgery in a university hospital. Our bundle of interventions consisted of nurses' screenings for regular alcohol consumption, withdrawal risk assessment, offering patients a substitution therapy, nurses' assessments of withdrawal symptoms and symptom oriented withdrawal management. Proximate endpoints were analyzed descriptively at each component of the bundle in terms of frequencies and severity of withdrawal symptoms, frequencies of nurses' and doctors' screenings and nurses' assessments performed as required. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2014, 87 inpatients met inclusion criteria and screenings by doctors/ nurses revealed 49 alcohol consumers, where six screenings were omitted by nurses and six by doctors. Twenty-one consumers were at risk and six of them developed an alcohol withdrawal syndrome. None of the 87 showed an alcohol withdrawal delirium, but five developed a delirium due to medical conditions. Nurses correctly conducted all preventive elements of the intervention bundle in 14 (58%) patients at risk but overall, only performed 50% of the required assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses safely managed patients' symptoms, nurses' adherence to the interventions was suboptimal and requires stronger leadership.

Detecting Delirium Superimposed on Dementia: Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium disproportionately affects patients with dementia and is associated with adverse outcomes. The diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), however, can be challenging due to several factors, including the absence of caregivers or the severity of preexisting cognitive impairment. Altered level of consciousness has been advocated as a possible useful indicator of delirium in this population. Here we evaluated the performance of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and the modified-RASS (m-RASS), an ultra-brief measure of the level of consciousness, in the diagnosis of DSD. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational study. RASS and m-RASS results were analyzed together, labeled RASS/m-RASS. SETTING: Acute geriatric wards, in-hospital rehabilitation, emergency department. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years and older with dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Delirium was diagnosed with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) or with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised (DRS-R-98), or with the 4 A's Test (4AT). Dementia was detected with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale, the Short Form-Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) or via the clinical records. RESULTS: Of the 645 patients included, 376 (58%) had delirium. According to the instrument used to evaluate delirium, the prevalence was 66% with the 4AT, 23% with the DSM, and 100% with the DRS-R-98. Overall a RASS/m-RASS score other than 0 was 70.5% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.9%-75.1%) and 84.8% (CI 80.5%-89.1%) specific for DSD. Using a RASS/m-RASS value greater than +1 or less than -1 as a cutoff, the sensitivity was 30.6% (CI 25.9%-35.2%) and the specificity was 95.5% (CI 93.1%-98.0%). The sensitivity and the specificity did not greatly vary according to the method of delirium diagnosis and the dementia ascertainment, although the specificity was slightly higher when the DSM and the IQCODE were used. CONCLUSION: In older patients admitted to different clinical settings, the RASS and m-RASS analyzed as a single group had moderate sensitivity and very high specificity for the detection of DSD. Level of consciousness is therefore a valuable clinical indicator that should form part of delirium screening strategies, although for higher sensitivity other methods of assessment should be used.

Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. METHODS: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. 'Strict' and 'relaxed' DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. RESULTS: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more 'relaxed' approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.

Screening, detection and management of delirium in the emergency department - a pilot study on the feasibility of a new algorithm for use in older emergency department patients: the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED).

BACKGROUND: Delirium in emergency department (ED) patients occurs frequently and often remains unrecognized. Most instruments for delirium detection are complex and therefore unfeasible for the ED. The aims of this pilot study were first, to confirm our hypothesis that there is an unmet need for formal delirium assessment by comparing informal delirium ratings of ED staff with formal delirium assessments performed by trained research assistants. Second, to test the feasibility of an algorithm for delirium screening, detection and management, which includes the newly developed modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED) at the ED bedside. Third, to test interrater reliability of the mCAM-ED. METHODS: This was a pilot study with a pre-post-test design with two data collection periods before and after the implementation of the algorithm. Consecutive ED patients aged 65 years and older were screened and assessed in the ED of a tertiary care center by trained research assistants. The delirium detection rate of informal ratings by nurses and physicians was compared with the standardized mCAM-ED assessment performed by the research assistants. To show the feasibility at the ED bedside, defined as adherence of ED staff to the algorithm, only post-test data were used. Additionally, the ED nurses' assessments were analyzed qualitatively. To investigate the agreement between research assistants and the reference standard, the two data sets were combined. RESULTS: In total, 207 patients were included in this study. We found that informal delirium assessment was inappropriate, even after a teaching intervention: Sensitivity of nurses to detect delirium without formal assessment was 0.27 pretest and 0.40 post-test, whilst sensitivity of physicians' informal rating was 0.45 pre-test and 0.6 post-test. ED staff demonstrated high adherence to the algorithm (76.5%). Research assistants assessing delirium with the mCAM-ED demonstrated a high agreement compared to the reference standard (kappa = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Informal assessment of delirium is inadequate. The mCAM-ED proved to be useful at the ED bedside. Performance criteria need to be tested in further studies. The mCAM-ED may contribute to early identification of delirious ED patients.

[Delirium prevention-the Basel model]. / Delirprävention-das Basler Modell.

BACKGROUND: Based on actual evidence, about one third of deliria can be prevented. Hereby, preventive measures can address both delirium predisposing as well as delirium precipitating factors. METHODS: In 2004 an interdisciplinary practice developmental project was developed, implemented and evaluated at the University Hospital Basel by action-based research. INTERVENTIONS: Preventive measures for delirium were developed, resource nurses trained and a systematic delirium screening procedure established. RESULTS: Nurses and doctors highly accepted the common approach. The delirium rate declined from 25% to 11%. The working load for nurses did not increase on the intervention wards, but decreased at night, whereas the night working load increased on the control wards. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional and interdisciplinary approach for the prevention of delirium has multiple winners: the patient, nurses and doctors.