ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a serious condition often experienced by critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The role of circadian light for this condition is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe incidence of delirium, risk factors for delirium, and the association between delirium and circadian light for patients in the ICU. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients at a Danish ICU from 1 August 2015 to 31 January 2016. Exclusion criteria were heavy sedation, no Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) scores, or inability to communicate in Danish. Delirium was defined as at least one positive CAM-ICU score or treatment with haloperidol. Three of nine beds at the ICU had a circadian light installation. Allocation to ICU beds with or without circadian light depended on availability at admission. Risk factors for development of delirium were analyzed by simple and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 183 patients in the study. The incidence of delirium was 28% (95% CI 22, 35). Allocation to beds with or without circadian lighting was not associated with delirium incidence (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.55, 2.37; P = 0.73). We found that Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01, 1.06; P = 0.002), and dexmedetomidine was associated with delirium (OR 4.14; 95% CI 1.72, 10.03; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In this population of patients admitted to an ICU during 6 months, the incidence of delirium was 28%. We did not find an association between circadian light and development of delirium.
Subject(s)
Delirium/etiology , Intensive Care Units , Phototherapy/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Circadian Rhythm , Confusion/epidemiology , Delirium/epidemiology , Delirium/prevention & control , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Incidence , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation efforts after treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) are termed intensive care aftercare. It includes both early in-hospital follow-up after ICU-discharge and late follow-up after hospital discharge. This study aims to investigate the current ICU-aftercare activities in Denmark. METHODS: We conducted an electronic questionnaire survey, which was distributed by e-mail to the heads of all 31 general ICUs in Denmark. Specialized ICUs were not included. The questionnaire was divided into the following sections: early ICU-aftercare, late ICU-aftercare, future development and demographics. RESULTS: Thirty-one ICUs were invited to participate. The response rate was 100%. Overall, 26 of 31 ICUs (84%) offered ICU-aftercare, with the following distribution: early ICU-aftercare (58%), late ICU-aftercare (57%) and both (29%). There were no significant associations between hospital size and provision of ICU-aftercare. For early ICU-aftercare, the most common eligibility criteria were based on ICU length of stay (LOS) (44%) and a decision based upon doctors' discretion (22%). Incidence of guidelines for early ICU-aftercare (44%) and checklists at patient contact (35%) were sparse. The most common early ICU-aftercare items were as follows: respiratory care (82%), tracheostomy care (59%) and nutritional care (59%). For late ICU-aftercare, the most common eligibility criterion was LOS (41%). Guidelines (71%), but not checklist at patient contact (35%), were more common. Most frequent late ICU-aftercare interventions were review of ICU-diaries (59%) and patient charts (53%). CONCLUSION: Eighty-four per cent of Danish ICUs offered ICU-aftercare to their patients. There was an abundant heterogeneity of eligibility criteria and ICU-aftercare interventions.