Unlicensed assistive personnel's involvement in delivering care to persons with or at risk of delirium: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the nature and extent of the literature regarding unlicensed assistive personnel's involvement in delivering care to persons with or at risk of delirium. INTRODUCTION: Initiatives that promote the involvement of unlicensed assistive personnel in providing additional supervision and care to persons with or at risk of delirium have been developed. Because no standardized approach guides unlicensed assistive personnel's involvement with persons with or at risk of delirium, and because inconsistent training and expectations may pose a threat to the safety and quality of care, it is essential to clarify the role of unlicensed assistive personnel in caring for persons with or at risk of delirium. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider articles published in peer-reviewed journals, dissertations, theses, book chapters, and conference papers. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies that report on the development, implementation, or evaluation of the role of unlicensed assistive personnel in contexts of delirium will be included. We will consider editorials and opinion papers only if they report on the development, implementation, or evaluation of the role of unlicensed assistive personnel. METHODS: Records published in French or English will be identified via CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers will select studies and extract data using a piloted form. Data will be synthesized narratively, using descriptive statistics and a tabular format. A consultation phase will include approximately 24 unlicensed assistive personnel and registered nurses who will be invited to comment on the review findings. KEY DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE IN OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK: https://osf.io/kg9yx/.

Ultrabrief Screens for Detecting Delirium in Postoperative Cognitively Intact Older Adults.

The authors' sought to develop an ultrabrief screen for postoperative delirium in cognitively intact patients older than 70 years undergoing major elective surgery. All possible combinations of one-, two- and three-item screens and their sensitivities, specificities, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and compared with the delirium reference standard Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Among the 560 participants (mean age, 77 years; 58% women), delirium occurred in 134 (24%). We considered 1,100 delirium assessments from postoperative days 1 and 2. The screen with the best overall performance consisted of three items: (1) Patient reports feeling confused, (2) Months of the year backward, and (3) "Does the patient appear sleepy?" with sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 72%. This brief, three-item screen rules out delirium quickly, identifies a subset of patients who require further testing, and may be an important tool to improve recognition of postoperative delirium.

Effect of Cognitively Stimulating Activities on Symptom Management of Delirium Superimposed on Dementia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cognitively stimulating activities would reduce duration and severity of delirium and improve cognitive and physical function to a greater extent than usual care. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Eight post-acute care (PAC) facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults with dementia and delirium (N = 283). INTERVENTION: Research staff provided cognitively stimulating activities daily for up to 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were delirium duration (Confusion Assessment Method) and delirium severity (Delirium Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes were cognitive function (Digits Forward, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, CLOX) and physical function (Barthel Index). RESULTS: Mean percentage of delirium-free days (intervention: 64.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 59.6-70.1; control: 68.7%, 95% CI = 63.9-73.6; P = .37, Wilcoxon rank sum test) and delirium severity (range 0-39: intervention: 10.77, 95% CI = 10.10-11.45; control: 11.15, 95% CI = 10.50-11.80; difference 0.37, 95% CI = 0.56-1.31, P = .43) were similar in both groups. Significant differences for secondary outcomes favoring intervention were found (executive function (range 0-15): intervention: 6.58, 95% CI = 6.12-7.04; control: 5.89, 95% CI = 5.45-6.33; difference -0.69, 95% CI = 1.33 to -0.06, P = .03; constructional praxis (range 0-15): intervention: 8.84, 95% CI = 8.83-9.34; control: 7.53, 95% CI = 7.04-8.01; difference -1.31, 95% CI = 2.01 to -0.61, P < .001). After adjusting for baseline constructional praxis, the group comparison was no longer significant. Average length of stay was shorter in the intervention (36.09 days) than the control (53.13 days) group (standard error = 0.15, P = .01, negative binomial regression). CONCLUSION: Cognitively stimulating activities did not improve delirium but improved executive function and reduced length of stay. Resolution of delirium may require more-intense nonpharmacological management when the individual has dementia.