Search

Background: Over 50% of all critically ill children develop preventable intensive care unit-acquired morbidity. Early and progressive mobility is associated with improved outcomes in critically ill adults including shortened duration of mechanical ventilation and improved muscle strength. However, the clinical effectiveness of early and progressive mobility in the pediatric intensive care unit has never been rigorously studied. The objective of the study is to evaluate if the PICU Up! intervention, delivered in real-world conditions, decreases mechanical ventilation duration (primary outcome) and improves delirium and functional status compared to usual care in critically ill children. Additionally, the study aims to identify factors associated with reliable PICU Up! delivery., Methods: The PICU Up! trial is a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial of a pragmatic, interprofessional, and multifaceted early mobility intervention (PICU Up!) conducted in 10 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). The trial's primary outcome is days alive free of mechanical ventilation (through day 21). Secondary outcomes include days alive and delirium- and coma-free (ADCF), days alive and coma-free (ACF), days alive, as well as functional status at the earlier of PICU discharge or day 21. Over a 2-year period, data will be collected on 1,440 PICU patients. The study includes an embedded process evaluation to identify factors associated with reliable PICU Up! delivery., Discussion: This study will examine whether a multifaceted strategy to optimize early mobility affects the duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium incidence, and functional outcomes in critically ill children. This study will provide new and important evidence on ways to optimize short and long-term outcomes for pediatric patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04989790. Registered on August 4, 2021., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common, often iatrogenically induced syndrome that may impede the physical, cognitive, and psychological recovery of critically ill adults. The effect delirium has on outcomes of intensive care unit patients having acute neurologic injury remains unclear because previous studies frequently exclude this vulnerable population. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of delirium among adults admitted to an intensive care unit experiencing an acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched with the terms (1) stroke, (2) critical care, and (3) delirium. Inclusion criteria were original peer-reviewed research reporting the incidence, outcomes, or predictors of delirium after acute stroke among critically ill adults. Editorials, reviews, posters, conference proceedings, abstracts, and studies in which stroke was not the primary reason for admission were excluded. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed by 2 authors, with disagreements adjudicated by a third author. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1051 results. Eighteen studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Stroke type was not mutually exclusive and included persons given a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (11), intracerebral hemorrhage (12), aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (8), and other (1) strokes. Incidence of delirium among stroke patients ranged from 12% to 75%. Predictors of delirium included older age, preexisting dementia, higher severity of illness, and physical restraint use. Outcomes associated with delirium included higher mortality, longer length of stay, worse cognition and quality of life, and lower functional status. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings are limited by heterogenous populations, assessments, and measurement parameters. Detection and management of delirium among critically ill stroke patients requires an approach with specific considerations to the complexities of acute neurological injury and concomitant critical illness., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Neuroscience Nurses.)

Objective: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU., Design: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017., Methods: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified., Results: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation., Conclusions: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, delirium is a syndrome commonly experienced by hospitalized adults. This article presents a case study highlighting how delirium may go unrecognized by the healthcare team and provides 10 suggestions for improving delirium assessment, prevention, and management in the acute care setting.

Delirium, a prevalent organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, is independently associated with increased morbidity. This last decade has witnessed an exponential growth in delirium research in hospitalized patients, including those critically ill, and this research has highlighted that delirium needs to be better understood mechanistically to help foster research that will ultimately lead to its prevention and treatment. In this invited, evidence-based paper, a multinational and interprofessional group of clinicians and researchers from within the fields of critical care medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, anesthesiology, geriatrics, surgery, neurology, nursing, pharmacy, and the neurosciences sought to address five questions: (1) What is the current standard of care in managing ICU delirium? (2) What have been the major recent advances in delirium research and care? (3) What are the common delirium beliefs that have been challenged by recent trials? (4) What are the remaining areas of uncertainty in delirium research? (5) What are some of the top study areas/trials to be done in the next 10 years? Herein, we briefly review the epidemiology of delirium, the current best practices for management of critically ill patients at risk for delirium or experiencing delirium, identify recent advances in our understanding of delirium as well as gaps in knowledge, and discuss research opportunities and barriers to implementation, with the goal of promoting an integrated research agenda.

Critically ill patients experience several severe, distressing, and often life-altering symptoms during their intensive care unit stay. A clinical practice guideline released by the American College of Critical Care Medicine provides a template for improving the care and outcomes of the critically ill through evidence-based pain, agitation, and delirium assessment, prevention, and management. Key strategies include the use of valid and reliable assessment tools, setting a desired sedation level target, a focus on light sedation, choosing appropriate sedative medications, the use of nonpharmacologic symptom management strategies, and engaging and empowering patients and their family to play an active role in their intensive care unit care., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians' ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes., Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies' efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described., Results: We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies such as "audit and feedback" and "tailored interventions" may be important to establish clinical outcome improvements, but otherwise robust data on effectiveness of specific implementation strategies were scarce. Successful implementation interventions were frequently reported to change process measures, such as improvements in adherence to delirium screening with up to 92%, but relating process measures to outcome changes was generally not possible. In meta-analyses, reduced mortality and ICU length of stay reduction were statistically more likely with implementation programs that employed more (six or more) rather than less implementation strategies and when a framework was used that either integrated current evidence on pain, agitation and delirium management (PAD) or when a strategy of early awakening, breathing, delirium screening and early exercise (ABCDE bundle) was employed. Using implementation strategies aimed at organizational change, next to behavioral change, was also associated with reduced mortality., Conclusion: Our findings may indicate that multi-component implementation programs with a higher number of strategies targeting ICU delirium assessment, prevention and treatment and integrated within PAD or ABCDE bundle have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, prospective confirmation of these findings is needed to inform the most effective implementation practice with regard to integrated delirium management and such research should clearly delineate effective practice change from improvements in clinical outcomes.

Objective: The debilitating and persistent effects of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness warrant testing of prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of implementing the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday practice., Design: Eighteen-month, prospective, cohort, before-after study conducted between November 2010 and May 2012., Setting: Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and one oncology/hematology special care unit located in a 624-bed tertiary medical center., Patients: Two hundred ninety-six patients (146 prebundle and 150 postbundle implementation), who are 19 years old or older, managed by the institutions' medical or surgical critical care service., Interventions: Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle., Measurements and Main Results: For mechanically ventilated patients (n = 187), we examined the association between bundle implementation and ventilator-free days. For all patients, we used regression models to quantify the relationship between Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle implementation and the prevalence/duration of delirium and coma, early mobilization, mortality, time to discharge, and change in residence. Safety outcomes and bundle adherence were monitored. Patients in the postimplementation period spent three more days breathing without mechanical assistance than did those in the preimplementation period (median [interquartile range], 24 [7-26] vs 21 [0-25]; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age, sex, severity of illness, comorbidity, and mechanical ventilation status, patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle experienced a near halving of the odds of delirium (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; p = 0.03) and increased odds of mobilizing out of bed at least once during an ICU stay (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.29-3.45; p = 0.003). No significant differences were noted in self-extubation or reintubation rates., Conclusions: Critically ill patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle spent three more days breathing without assistance, experienced less delirium, and were more likely to be mobilized during their ICU stay than patients treated with usual care.

Objective: The awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle is an evidence-based interprofessional multicomponent strategy for minimizing sedative exposure, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and managing ICU-acquired delirium and weakness. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle adoption and to evaluate the extent to which bundle implementation was effective, sustainable, and conducive to dissemination., Design: Prospective, before-after, mixed-methods study., Setting: Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and a special care unit located in a 624-bed academic medical center, Subjects: : Interprofessional ICU team members at participating institution., Interventions and Measurements: In collaboration with the participating institution, we developed, implemented, and refined an awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle policy. Over the course of an 18-month period, all ICU team members were offered the opportunity to participate in numerous multimodal educational efforts. Three focus group sessions, three online surveys, and one educational evaluation were administered in an attempt to identify facilitators and barriers to bundle adoption., Main Results: Factors believed to facilitate bundle implementation included: 1) the performance of daily, interdisciplinary, rounds; 2) engagement of key implementation leaders; 3) sustained and diverse educational efforts; and 4) the bundle's quality and strength. Barriers identified included: 1) intervention-related issues (e.g., timing of trials, fear of adverse events), 2) communication and care coordination challenges, 3) knowledge deficits, 4) workload concerns, and 5) documentation burden. Despite these challenges, participants believed implementation ultimately benefited patients, improved interdisciplinary communication, and empowered nurses and other ICU team members., Conclusions: In this study of the implementation of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle in a tertiary care setting, clear factors were identified that both advanced and impeded adoption of this complex intervention that requires interprofessional education, coordination, and cooperation. Focusing on these factors preemptively should enable a more effective and lasting implementation of the bundle and better care for critically ill patients. Lessons learned from this study will also help healthcare providers optimize implementation of the recent ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines, which has many similarities but also some important differences as compared with the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients' comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.

It has been 10 years since the last publication of the clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium (PAD). The results of new studies have directed significant changes in critical care practice. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the guidelines were revised, resulting in 32 recommendations and 22 summary statements. This article provides guidance toward guideline implementation strategies and outlines 10 key points to consider. Compared with its predecessor, the 2013 PAD guidelines are less prescriptive in that they recommend approaches to patient care rather than giving specific medication recommendations. This will help focus care teams on the process and structure of patient management and result in more flexibility when choosing specific medications. This article outlines approaches to guideline implementation that take into account the changes in philosophy surrounding medication selection. The manuscript focuses on the areas anticipated to generate the most change such as lighter sedation targets, avoidance of benzodiazepines, and early mobility. A gap analysis grid is provided. The release of any guideline should prompt reevaluation of current institutional practice standards. This manuscript uses the PAD guidelines as an example of how to approach the interprofessional work of guideline implementation., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Delirium in older adults in critical care is associated with poor outcomes, including longer stays, higher costs, increased mortality, greater use of continuous sedation and physical restraints, increased unintended removal of catheters and self-extubation, functional decline, new institutionalization, and new onset of cognitive impairment. Diagnosing delirium is complicated because many critically ill older adults cannot communicate their needs effectively. Manifestations include reduced ability to focus attention, disorientation, memory impairment, and perceptual disturbances. Nurses often have primary responsibility for detecting and treating delirium, which can be extraordinarily complicated because patients are often voiceless, extremely ill, and require high levels of sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation. An aggressive, appropriate, and compassionate management strategy may reduce the suffering and adverse outcomes associated with delirium and improve relationships between nurses, patients, and patients' family members.

Background: We previously noted that older adults admitted to surgical ICUs (SICUs) are at high risk for delirium. In the current study, we describe the association between the presence of delirium and complications in older SICU patients, and describe the association between delirium occurring in the SICU and functional ability and discharge placement for older patients., Methods: Secondary analysis of prospective, observational, cohort study. Subjects were 114 consecutive patients >or= 65 years old admitted to a surgical critical care service. All subjects underwent daily delirium and sedation/agitation screening during hospitalization. Outcomes prospectively recorded included SICU complication development, discharge location, and functional ability (as measured by the Katz activities of daily living instrument)., Results: Nearly one third of older adults (31.6%) admitted to an SICU had a complication during ICU stay. There was a strong association between SICU delirium and complication occurrence (p = 0.001). Complication occurrence preceded delirium diagnosis for 16 of 20 subjects. Subjects with delirium in the SICU were more likely to be discharged to a place other than home (61.3% vs 20.5%, p < 0.0001) and have greater functional decline (67.7% vs 43.6%, p = 0.023) than nondelirious subjects. After adjusting for covariates including severity of illness and mechanical ventilation use, delirium was found to be strongly and independently associated with greater odds of being discharged to a place other than home (odds ratio, 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.93 to 26.82)., Conclusions: Delirium in older surgical ICU patients is associated with complications and an increased likelihood of discharge to a place other than home.

Purpose: To examine the frequency and course of delirium in older adults admitted to a surgical intensive care unit (SICU)., Design and Methods: Prospective, observational cohort study of 114 English-speaking participants and their surrogates, aged 65 and older, admitted to an SICU, and managed by a surgical critical care service. Chart reviews and surrogate interviews were conducted within 24 hours of SICU admission to collect information regarding evidence of dementia using the short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Participants were also screened for delirium daily throughout their hospitalization with either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) while in the SICU or the CAM while on medical/surgical units., Results: In this population of older adults, 18.4% had evidence of dementia on admission to the SICU. Few older adults (2.6%) were admitted to the hospital with evidence of preexisting delirium, but 28.3% developed delirium in the SICU and 22.7% during the post-SICU period. A total of 52 of 114 (45.6%) participants were delirious sometime during their hospital stay or 24 hours before hospital admission. Episodes of deep sedation and nonarousal were uncommon, occurring in only 9.7% of the sample., Conclusions: Older adults admitted to SICUs were at high risk for developing delirium during hospitalization. Further research is needed to elucidate the risk factors for, and outcomes of, delirium in this uniquely vulnerable population.