BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired delirium is a known risk factor for negative outcomes in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Outcomes worsen as the duration of delirium increases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a delirium prevention program and determine whether it decreased the incidence and duration of hospital-acquired delirium in older adults (age>50 y) admitted to the SICU.
METHODS: A prospective pre- or post-intervention cohort study was done at an academic level I trauma center. Older adults admitted to the SICU were enrolled in a delirium prevention program. Those with traumatic brain injury, dementia, or 0 d of obtainable delirium status were excluded from analysis. The intervention consisted of multidisciplinary education, a pharmacologic protocol to limit medications associated with delirium, and a nonpharmacologic sleep enhancement protocol. Primary outcomes were incidence of delirium and delirium-free days/30. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days/30, SICU length of stay (LOS), daily and cumulative doses of opioids (milligram, morphine equivalents) and benzodiazepines (milligram, lorazepam equivalents), and time spent in severe pain (greater than or equal to 6 on a scale of 1-10). Delirium was measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Data were analyzed using Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum analysis.
RESULTS: Of 624 patients admitted to the SICU, 123 met inclusion criteria: 57 preintervention (3/12-6/12) and 66 postintervention (7/12-3/13). Cohorts were similar in age, gender, ratio of trauma patients, and Injury Severity Score. Postintervention, older adults experienced delirium at the same incidence (pre 47% versus 58%, P=0.26), but for a significantly decreased duration as indicated by an increase in delirium-free days/30 (pre 24 versus 27, P=0.002). After intervention, older adults with delirium had more vent-free days (pre 21 versus 25, P=0.03), shorter SICU LOS (pre 13 [median 12] versus 7 [median 6], P=0.01) and were less likely to be treated with benzodiazepines (pre 85% versus 63%, P=0.05) with a lower daily dose when prescribed (pre 5.7 versus 3.6 mg, P=0.04). After intervention, all older adults spent less time in pain (pre 4.7 versus 3.1 h, P=0.02), received less total opioids (pre 401 versus 260 mg, P=0.01), and had shorter SICU LOS (pre 9 [median 5] versus 6 [median 4], P=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Although delirium prevention continues to be a challenge, this study successfully decreased the duration of delirium for older adults admitted to the SICU. Our simple, cost-effective program led to improved pain and sedation outcomes. Older adults with delirium spent less time on the ventilator and all patients spent less time in the SICU.
RATIONALE: Introduction of sedation protocols has been associated with improved patient outcomes. It is not known if an update to an existing high-quality sedation protocol, featuring increased patient assessment and reduced benzodiazepine exposure, is associated with improved patient process and outcome quality metrics.
METHODS: This was an observational before (n = 703) and after (n = 780) cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients in a 24-bed trauma-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2009 to 2011. The three main protocol updates were: (1) requirement to document Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores every 4 hours, (2) requirement to document Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM ICU) twice daily, and (3) systematic, protocolized deescalation of excess sedation. Multivariable linear regression was used for the primary analysis. The primary outcome was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Prespecified secondary endpoints included days of delirium; the frequency of patient assessment with the RASS and CAM-ICU instruments; benzodiazepine dosing; durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization; and hospital mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia rate.
RESULTS: Patients in the updated protocol cohort had 1.22 more RASS assessments per day (5.38 vs. 4.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.39; P < 0.01) and 1.15 more CAM-ICU assessments per day (1.49 vs. 0.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.21; P < 0.01) than the baseline cohort. The mean hourly benzodiazepine dose decreased by 34.8% (0.08 mg lorazepam equivalents/h; 0.15 vs. 0.23; P < 0.01). In the multivariable model, the median duration of mechanical ventilation decreased by 17.6% (95% CI, 0.6-31.7%; P = 0.04). The overall odds ratio of delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49-0.91; P = 0.01) comparing updated versus baseline cohort. A 12.4% reduction in median duration of ICU stay (95% CI, 0.5-22.8%; P = 0.04) and a 14.0% reduction in median duration of hospitalization (95% CI, 2.0-24.5%; P = 0.02) were also seen. No significant association with mortality (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.80-1.76; P = 0.40) was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an updated ICU analgesia, sedation, and delirium protocol was associated with an increase in RASS and CAM-ICU assessment and documentation; reduced hourly benzodiazepine dose; and decreased delirium and median durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization.
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: Deep sedation and delirium are common in the ICU. Mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury are at especially high risk for deep sedation, delirium, and associated long-term physical and neuropsychiatric impairments. We undertook an ICU-wide structured quality improvement project to decrease sedation and delirium.
DESIGN: Prospective quality improvement project in comparison with a retrospective acute lung injury control group.
SETTING: Sixteen-bed medical ICU in an academic teaching hospital with pre-existing use of goal-directed sedation with daily interruption of sedative infusions.
PATIENTS: Consecutive acute lung injury patients.
INTERVENTION: A "4Es" framework (engage, educate, execute, evaluate) was used as part of the quality improvement process. A new sedation protocol was created and implemented, which recommends a target Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of 0 (alert and calm) and requires failure of intermittent sedative dosing prior to starting continuous infusions. In addition, twice-daily delirium screening using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was introduced into routine practice.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedative use and delirium status in acute lung injury patients after implementation of the quality improvement project (n = 82) were compared with a historical control group (n = 120). During the quality improvement vs. control periods, use of narcotic and benzodiazepine infusions were substantially lower (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 33% vs. 74%, and 22% vs. 70%, respectively, both p < 0.001). Further, wakefulness increased (median Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score per patient: -1.5 vs. -4.0, p < 0.001), and days awake and not delirious increased (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 19% vs. 0%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Through a structured quality improvement process, use of sedative infusions can be substantially decreased and days awake without delirium significantly increased, even in severely ill, mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury.
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study was designed to identify which contextual factors facilitate/hinder the implementation of the awakening, breathing, coordination, delirium, and early mobility (ABCDE) bundle for guidance in future studies.
DESIGN: The sources of data for this study included document review, planned site visits (including interviews and observations), a brief online contextual factors survey, and self-reported process and outcome data.
PATIENTS: All patients in the four participating SF Bay Area ICUs were eligible to be included in this pilot study.
SETTING: This study took place in the four San Francisco Bay Area ICUs participating in the ICU Clinical Impact Interest Group, funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation from January 2012 through June 2013.
INTERVENTIONS: This was a pilot evaluation study to identify factors that facilitated/hindered the implementation of the ABCDE bundle, interventions designed to decrease the prevalence of ICU-acquired delirium and muscle weakness. The ABCDE bundle consists of spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, coordination of awakening and breathing trials, choice of sedation, delirium screening and treatment, and early progressive mobility.
MEASUREMENTS: Process data related to bundle element compliance were collected at baseline and monthly during the intervention period. Outcome data (average ICU length of stay and average days on mechanical ventilation) were collected at baseline and quarterly during the intervention period. Hospital-specific results of the online contextual factors survey and information gathered through interviews and observations during site visits also contributed to the analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Factors related to structural characteristics of the ICU, an organizational-wide patient safety culture, an ICU culture of quality improvement, implementation planning, training/support, and prompts/documentation are believed to have facilitated the rate and success of ABCDE bundle implementation. Excessive turnover (both in project and ICU leadership), staff morale issues, lack of respect among disciplines, knowledge deficits, and excessive use of registry staff are believed to have hindered implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of the elements of the ABCDE bundle can result in significant improvements in ICU patient care. The results of this study highlight specific structural and cultural elements of ICUs and hospitals that can positively and negatively influence the implementation of complex care bundles like the ABCDE bundle. Further research is needed to assess the influence of these contextual factors across a broader variety of ICUs and hospitals.
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.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the validated Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) delirium screening tool in a critical care unit.
DESIGN: A single centre service evaluation design was conducted in an 18 bed critical care unit comprising medical and surgical patients. Two self report questionnaires were administered to nursing staff (n=78) one immediately prior to and then three months following delirium education and CAM-ICU practical training.
RESULTS: The response rates of the questionnaires were 92% (72/78) and 60% (47/78) respectively, completed by predominantly females with a similar age range across the two groups. Prior to education and training 54% (39/72) of nurses agreed that delirium was a significantly underdiagnosed problem. Few nurses (6%, 4/72) considered evaluating their patients for it and 69% (50/72) did not feel the need to routinely monitor. Following a simple educational intervention 68% (32/47) believed delirium was a very serious problem, 74.5% (35/47) frequently evaluated their patients and only 31% (15/47) felt that CAM-ICU assessments should not be part of routine nursing care. The majority (85.1%, 40/47) of nurses found the CAM-ICU easy to administer, were confident in using the tool (74.4%, 35/47) and felt it led to a more comprehensive patient assessment (83%, 39/47). Despite this, barriers to undertaking delirium assessment identified at the start of the project remained and included patient intubation (42%, 20/47), sedation level (40%, 19/47) and medical staff inability to act on CAM-ICU assessment data (25%, 12/47).
CONCLUSION: This service evaluation has shown that implementation of a delirium screening tool into daily nursing practice is achievable within a relatively short time period. A simple, educational intervention incorporating written and video information improved the capacity of critical care nurses to perform delirium assessments in a standardised way and reduced the discordance between the perceived importance of delirium and the practice of its evaluation. Such data is especially important since delirium assessments had not traditionally been part of daily nursing care.
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in intensive care settings results in poor patient outcomes. We designed and used a protocol for systematic assessment and management of PAD by the nurses to improve clinical intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 201 patients admitted to 2 mixed medical-surgical ICUs were randomly allocated to protocol and control groups. A multidisciplinary team approved the protocol. Pain was assessed by Numerical Rating Scale and Behavioural Pain Scale, agitation by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and delirium by Confusion Assessment Method in ICU. The Persian version of the scales was prepared and tested for validity, reliability, and feasibility in a preliminary study. The patients in the protocol group were managed pharmacologically according to the protocol, whereas those in the control group were managed according to the ICU routine.
RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) for the duration of mechanical ventilation in the protocol and control groups was 19 (9.3-67.8) and 40 (0-217) hours, respectively (P = .038). The median (interquartile range) length of ICU stay was 97 (54.5-189) hours in the protocol group vs 170 (80-408) hours in the control group (P < .001). The mortality rate in the protocol group was significantly reduced from 23.8% to 12.5% (P = .046).
CONCLUSION: The current randomized trial provided evidence for a substantial reduction in the duration of need to ventilatory support, length of ICU stay, and mortality rates in ICU-admitted patients through protocol-directed management of PAD.
BACKGROUND: The impact of using a validated delirium screening tool and different levels of education on surgical-trauma intensive care unit (STICU) nurses' knowledge about delirium is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), with or without a multi-faceted education program, on STICU nurses' knowledge and perceptions of delirium and their ability to evaluate it correctly.
METHODS: The knowledge and perceptions of subject nurses about delirium, and agreement between the independent assessments of delirium by the subject nurse and by a validated judge (who always used the ICDSC), were compared across 3 phases. Phase 1: No delirium screening tool and no education. Phase 2: ICDSC and minimal education (ie, ICDSC validation study only). Phase 3: ICDSC and multifaceted education (ie, pharmacist-led didactic lecture, Web-based module, and nurse-led bedside training).
RESULTS: Nurses' knowledge (mean [SD] score out of 10 points) was similar (P = .08) in phase 1 (6.1 [1.4]) and phase 2 (6.5 [1.4]) but was greater (P = .001) in phase 3 (8.2 [1.4]). Agreement between nurses and the validated judge in the assessment of delirium increased from phase 1 (κ = 0.40) to phase 2 (κ = 0.62) to phase 3 (κ = 0.74). Nurses perceived use of the ICDSC as improving their ability to recognize delirium.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a multifaceted education program improves both nurses' knowledge about delirium and their perceptions about its recognition. Implementation of the ICDSC improves the ability of STICU nurses to evaluate delirium correctly.
BACKGROUND: A wide variability in the approach towards delirium prevention and treatment in the critically ill results from the dearth of prospective randomised studies.
METHODS: We launched a two-stage prospective observational study to assess delirium epidemiology, risk factors and impact on patient outcome, by enrolling all patients admitted to our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) over a year. The first step - from January to June 2008 was the observational phase, whereas the second one from July to December 2008 was interventional. All the patients admitted to our ICU were recruited but those with pre-existing cognitive disorders, dementia, psychosis and disability after stroke were excluded from the data analysis. Delirium assessment was performed according with Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU twice per day after sedation interruption. During phase 2, patients underwent both a re-orientation strategy and environmental, acoustic and visual stimulation.
RESULTS: We admitted a total of respectively 170 (I-ph) and 144 patients (II-ph). The delirium occurrence was significantly lower in (II-ph) 22% vs. 35% in (I-ph) (P=0.020). A Cox's Proportional Hazard model found the applied reorientation strategy as the strongest protective predictors of delirium: (HR 0.504, 95% C.I. 0.313-0.890, P=0.034), whereas age (HR 1.034, 95% CI: 1.013-1.056, P=0.001) and sedation with midazolam plus opiate (HR 2.145, 95% CI: 2.247-4.032, P=0.018) were negative predictors.
CONCLUSION: A timely reorientation strategy seems to be correlated with significantly lower occurrence of delirium.
Hospital-acquired delirium is a known risk factor for negative outcomes in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Outcomes worsen as the duration of delirium increases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a delirium prevention program and determine whether it decreased the incidence and duration of hospital-acquired delirium in older adults (age>50 y) admitted to the SICU.
METHODS:
A prospective pre- or post-intervention cohort study was done at an academic level I trauma center. Older adults admitted to the SICU were enrolled in a delirium prevention program. Those with traumatic brain injury, dementia, or 0 d of obtainable delirium status were excluded from analysis. The intervention consisted of multidisciplinary education, a pharmacologic protocol to limit medications associated with delirium, and a nonpharmacologic sleep enhancement protocol. Primary outcomes were incidence of delirium and delirium-free days/30. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days/30, SICU length of stay (LOS), daily and cumulative doses of opioids (milligram, morphine equivalents) and benzodiazepines (milligram, lorazepam equivalents), and time spent in severe pain (greater than or equal to 6 on a scale of 1-10). Delirium was measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Data were analyzed using Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum analysis.
RESULTS:
Of 624 patients admitted to the SICU, 123 met inclusion criteria: 57 preintervention (3/12-6/12) and 66 postintervention (7/12-3/13). Cohorts were similar in age, gender, ratio of trauma patients, and Injury Severity Score. Postintervention, older adults experienced delirium at the same incidence (pre 47% versus 58%, P=0.26), but for a significantly decreased duration as indicated by an increase in delirium-free days/30 (pre 24 versus 27, P=0.002). After intervention, older adults with delirium had more vent-free days (pre 21 versus 25, P=0.03), shorter SICU LOS (pre 13 [median 12] versus 7 [median 6], P=0.01) and were less likely to be treated with benzodiazepines (pre 85% versus 63%, P=0.05) with a lower daily dose when prescribed (pre 5.7 versus 3.6 mg, P=0.04). After intervention, all older adults spent less time in pain (pre 4.7 versus 3.1 h, P=0.02), received less total opioids (pre 401 versus 260 mg, P=0.01), and had shorter SICU LOS (pre 9 [median 5] versus 6 [median 4], P=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS:
Although delirium prevention continues to be a challenge, this study successfully decreased the duration of delirium for older adults admitted to the SICU. Our simple, cost-effective program led to improved pain and sedation outcomes. Older adults with delirium spent less time on the ventilator and all patients spent less time in the SICU.
