Search

The clinical statistical performance of the Confusion Assessment Method Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU, including CAM-ICU-7) and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) have rarely been studied. Additionally, delirium severity is often not measured due to a lack of validation of delirium assessment tools. The aim was to determine the statistical performance of both delirium assessment tools in daily practice, and the correlation with the gold standard Delirium Rating Scale (DRS)-R98, for delirium severity. CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC, performed by nurses were compared with the DRS-R98 assessed by delirium experts, twice weekly. Within a time-window of one hour all assessments were independently performed. A prospective observational study performed between October and December 2020. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of both tools was determined. The correlation between DRS-R98 and CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC was used for validation of delirium severity. In total, 104 CAM-ICU-7 and 105 ICDSC assessments in 86 patients were compared with the DRS-R98. For the CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC, respectively, the sensitivity was 90% and 95%, the specificity was 92.4% and 92.3%. The positive predictive value was 0.76 and 0.80, and negative predictive value was 0.77 and 0.97. Correlation of the CAM-ICU-7 score and ICDSC score with the DRS-R98 score was 0.74 (95% CI 0.64–0.81) and 0.70 (95%CI 0.59–0.79; both p < 0.001), respectively. Both CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC demonstrated good statistical performance and correlated well with the delirium severity tool DRS-R98. Nurses can either use the CAM-ICU(-7) or the ICDSC in their practice, both are accurate in delirium diagnosis. Total CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC score reflects delirium severity well; the higher the score, the more severe the delirium. This enables nurses to gauge the impact of their interventions and enhance the well-being of patients experiencing delirium by minimizing distressing occurrences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delirium frequently occurs in intensive care unit patients and is associated with worse outcomes. Recently, a multicomponent non-pharmacological nursing intervention program called UNDERPIN-ICU, was implemented in ten Dutch intensive care units. The program was aimed at delirium reduction by optimizing four modifiable risk factors: visual and hearing impairment, cognitive impairment, immobility, and sleep deprivation. Despite its scientific fundament and extensive implementation, this program showed no effect on delirium outcomes. To explore factors that hindered or facilitated the application of the UNDERPIN-ICU delirium program in daily practice as experienced by healthcare professionals. Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted in all participating centers between April and June of 2019. Directed content and thematic analyses were applied. Interviews were coded. Codes were grouped into categories based on factors that hindered or facilitated program application. In total, 22 ICU nurses, 3 ICU physicians, 5 local delirium group members and one research manager participated in 10 focus group interviews. We found 41 factors that hindered or facilitated program application, grouped into five categories: interventions; individual healthcare professional; patient; implementation process; capacity for change, incentives and resources. Among the factors identified in this study, the facilitating factors included standardized interventions, a structured implementation, interactive educational meetings and, feedback and support. The hindering factors included doubts about usefulness, feasibility, the extensive number of program components, limited knowledge about the program and a focus on physical care. Factors that hindered program application may explain why the UNDERPIN-ICU program did not have positive effects on delirium outcomes. Factors that facilitated application should be strengthened in future non-pharmacological nursing interventions to prevent or reduce delirium in intensive care. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03002701 ; registration date December 26, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the influence of instrumental, emotional and informative support on the quality of life of former intensive care unit (ICU) patients and to establish their preferred sources of social support. Research methodology: In a cross-sectional survey, former intensive care patients (n = 88) completed the ''social support interactions/discrepancies list'', the ''RAND-36 Health Survey'' and reported their preferred sources of the different types of social support. Setting: A 35 bed intensive care unit in the Radboudumc university hospital in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: Psychological, physical and social domains of quality of life and patient preferences regarding sources of social support. Results: Instrumental and emotional support show a buffering effect on the physical dimension of the quality of life. The discrepancies between the expected and the received instrumental, informative and emotional support have a negative influence on psychological quality of life. Former ICU patients prefer receiving social support from family members rather than friends, professional caregivers or fellow former ICU patients. Conclusion: This study emphasises the buffering effect of social support on diminished quality of life in former intensive care patients. It is suggested that hospitals provide an intensive care after-care programme including both patients and relatives to help fulfilling this need for social support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore changes in advance care plans of nursing home residents with dementia following pneumonia, and factors associated with changes. Second, to explore factors associated with the person perceived by elderly care physicians as most influential in advance treatment decision making. Secondary analysis of physician-reported PneuMonitor trial data. The PneuMonitor trial took place between January 2012 and May 2015 in 32 nursing homes across the Netherlands; it involved 429 residents with dementia who developed pneumonia. We compared advance care plans before and after the first pneumonia episode. Generalized logistic linear mixed models were used to explore associations of advance care plan changes with the person most influential in decision making, with demographics and indicators of disease progression. Exploratory analyses assessed associations with the person most influential in decision making. For >90% of the residents, advance care plans had been established before the pneumonia. After pneumonia, treatment goals were revised in 15.9% of residents; 72% of all changes entailed refinements of goals. Significant associations with treatment goal changes were not found. Treatment plans changed in 20.0% of residents. Changes in treatment decisions were more likely for residents who were more severely ill (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9) and those estimated to live <3 months (odds ratio 3.3, 95% CI 1.9-5.8). Physicians reported that a family member was often (47.4%) most influential in decision making. Who is most influential was associated with the resident's dementia severity. Overall, changes in advance care plans after pneumonia diagnosis were small, suggesting stability of most preferences or limited dynamics in the advance care planning process. Advance care planning involving family is common for nursing home residents with dementia, but advance care planning with persons with dementia themselves is rare and requires more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]