[Treatment of hypoactive delirium: is there a place for antipsychotics?] / Behandeling van een stil delier.

Hypoactive delirium is common among older hospitalised patients: between 29 and 64% of all older patients in hospital develop a delirium, of which the majority is of the hypoactive subtype. Hypoactive delirium often remains undiagnosed or is only diagnosed late and prognosis is worse than for a hyperactive delirium. Psychotic symptoms, fear, and distress are as frequent in hypoactive as in hyperactive delirium. The guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners and the multidisciplinary guideline of the Dutch Geriatrics Society differ in their advice on the pharmacological treatment of hypoactive delirium. Research into the effectiveness of antipsychotics so far did not differentiate between the different types of delirium. In patients with hypoactive delirium, antipsychotics should only be considered after all non-pharmacological options have been tried, no obvious and solvable cause for the delirium has been found and the patient is visibly suffering from the psychotic symptoms.

Can education improve clinical practice concerning delirium in older hospitalised patients? Results of a pre-test post-test study on an educational intervention for nursing staff.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and serious complication of hospitalisation in older adults. It can lead to prolonged hospital stay, institutionalisation, and even death. However, it often remains unrecognised or is not managed adequately. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of an educational intervention for nursing staff on three aspects of clinical practice concerning delirium in older hospitalised patients: the frequency and correctness of screening for delirium using the 13-item Delirium Observation Screening score (DOS), and the frequency of geriatric consultations requested for older patients. The a priori expectations were that there would be an increase in all three of these outcomes. METHODS: We designed an educational intervention and implemented this on two inpatient hospital units. Before providing the educational session, the nursing staff was asked to fill out two questionnaires about delirium in older hospitalised patients. The educational session was then tailored to each unit based on the results of these questionnaires. Additionally, posters and flyers with information on the screening and management of delirium were provided and participants were shown where to find additional information. Relevant data (outcomes, demographics and background patient data) were collected retrospectively from digital medical files. Data was retrospectively collected for four different time points: three pre-test and one post-test. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in frequency of delirium screening (P = 0.001), and both units showed an increase in the correctness of the screening. No significant effect of the educational intervention was found for the proportion of patients who received a geriatric consultation (P = 0.083). CONCLUSION: The educational intervention was fairly successful in making positive changes in clinical practice: after the educational session an improvement in the frequency and correctness of screening for delirium was observed. A trend, though not significant, towards an increase in the proportion of geriatric consultations for older hospitalised patients was also observed.

Effects of a Medication Review on Delirium in Older Hospitalised Patients: A Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium in older hospitalised patients is a common and serious disorder. Polypharmacy and certain medications are risk factors for developing delirium. A medication review could benefit older hospitalised patients with delirium. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate the effects of medication review on length of delirium, length of hospital stay, mortality, and discharge destination; and (2) describe and analyse the proposed changes to medication and its implementation by the treating physician. SETTING: The study was conducted at Maastricht University Medical Centre+. METHODS: We compared two cohorts of older patients with delirium: the first cohort from before introducing the medication review, and a second cohort 5 months after introduction of the medication review. Data were extracted from the patients' digital medical records. RESULTS: A significant interaction effect of cohort and number of medications taken by the patient was found for duration of delirium: patients from the second cohort taking between zero and six medications had significantly shorter delirious episodes than patients in the first cohort. This effect bordered on significance for patients taking between seven and 11 medications, but disappeared for patients taking 12 or more medications. No other statistically significant differences were found between the cohorts. The proposed changes in medication were implemented for 71% of the patients. CONCLUSION: A medication review seems to significantly decrease the length of an older patient's delirious episode. Given the clinical relevance of these findings, we advise medication reviews for all older patients who are delirious or are at risk of developing delirium.

Detection and management of hyperactive and hypoactive delirium in older patients during hospitalization: a retrospective cohort study evaluating daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study are to study daily hospital practice regarding detection and management and to study hyperactive and hypoactive delirium of older patients during their hospitalization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study evaluating care as usual for older hospitalized patients with delirium at Maastricht University Medical Center+, a university hospital in the Netherlands, was performed. Inclusion criteria were older hospitalized patients (65+ years), diagnosed with delirium between 1 January and 31 December 2014. Data were retrieved from the patients' medical files. Delirium was categorized as hyperactive or hypoactive. Primary outcome measures were prevalence and management (pharmacological, reorientation, screening for delirium and delirium consultations, and physical restraints). Secondary outcomes were short-term adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Prevalence of delirium was 5% (N = 401), of which 77% (n = 307) was hyperactive and 23% (n = 94) was hypoactive. Significantly, more patients with a hyperactive delirium received medication to manage the delirium than patients with a hypoactive delirium (89% vs. 77%, respectively, p = 0.004). No other significant differences between the subtypes were found. CONCLUSION: There was probably a strong under-recognition of delirium. Drugs were the main intervention of choice, especially for patients with hyperactive delirium. The two subtypes did not differ on non-pharmacological management. The retrospective nature of this study sheds light on the status quo of recognition, management, and care as usual for the different delirium subtypes in daily hospital practice, which may help in forming new guidelines and protocols for the detection and treatment of delirium for older patients in hospitals.

Psychometric properties and feasibility of instruments for the detection of delirium in older hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Delirium is a serious and common complication among older hospitalized patients and is a predictor of many adverse outcomes. However, up to 72% of delirium incidents are unrecognized or misdiagnosed. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of instruments for the detection of delirium in older hospitalized patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted. The inclusion criteria were a mean or median age of 65+ years, the use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases-10 as a reference standard, and publication in English. All included studies underwent a quality assessment (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Forty-three of the 3.790 identified studies were relevant to the review, describing 28 instruments. Quality assessment resulted in 37 studies with a positive quality assessment, describing 23 instruments. Five instruments (Delirium Observation Scale (DOS), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), CAM-Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98) were described in three or more methodologically sound studies. The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) and Nu-DESC are observational instruments with good psychometric properties, but the Nu-DESC is shorter and has been validated in more languages. The CAM, CAM-ICU, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) are instruments with both observational and interactive components. The CAM is the most widely studied and demonstrates the best psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: Timely detection of delirium might reduce the negative outcomes of delirium in the long term. The Nu-DESC and CAM appear to be the most adequate instruments for detecting delirium. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.