BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and distressing mental disorder. It is often caused by a combination of stressor events in susceptible people, particularly older people living with frailty and dementia. Adults living in institutional long-term care (LTC) are at particularly high risk of delirium. An episode of delirium increases risks of admission to hospital, development or worsening of dementia and death. Multicomponent interventions can reduce the incidence of delirium by a third in the hospital setting. However, it is currently unclear whether interventions to prevent delirium in LTC are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in older people in institutional long-term care settings.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) 's Specialised Register of dementia trials (dementia.cochrane.org/our-trials-register), to 27 February 2019. The search was sufficiently sensitive to identify all studies relating to delirium. We ran additional separate searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), major healthcare databases, trial registers and grey literature sources to ensure that the search was comprehensive.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs) of single and multicomponent, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in older people (aged 65 years and over) in permanent LTC residence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were prevalence, incidence and severity of delirium; and mortality. Secondary outcomes included falls, hospital admissions and other adverse events; cognitive function; new diagnoses of dementia; activities of daily living; quality of life; and cost-related outcomes. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. For each outcome, we assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with 3851 participants. All three were cluster-RCTs. Two of the trials were of complex, single-component, non-pharmacological interventions and one trial was a feasibility trial of a complex, multicomponent, non-pharmacological intervention. Risk of bias ratings were mixed across the three trials. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the interventions, we did not combine the results statistically, but produced a narrative summary.It was not possible to determine the effect of a hydration-based intervention on delirium incidence (RR 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 4.00; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision). This study did not assess delirium prevalence, severity or mortality.The introduction of a computerised system to identify medications that may contribute to delirium risk and trigger a medication review was probably associated with a reduction in delirium incidence (12-month HR 0.42, CI 0.34 to 0.51; 1 study, 7311 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias) but probably had little or no effect on mortality (HR 0.88, CI 0.66 to 1.17; 1 study, 9412 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision), hospital admissions (HR 0.89, CI 0.72 to 1.10; 1 study, 7599 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision) or falls (HR 1.03, CI 0.92 to 1.15; 1 study, 2275 participant-months; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). Delirium prevalence and severity were not assessed.In the enhanced educational intervention study, aimed at changing practice to address key delirium risk factors, it was not possible to determine the effect of the intervention on delirium incidence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.39; 1 study, 137 resident months; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision) or delirium prevalence (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.19; 1 study, 160 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was probably little or no effect on mortality (RR 0.82, CI 0.50 to 1.34; 1 study, 215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision). The intervention was probably associated with a reduction in hospital admissions (RR 0.67, CI 0.57 to 0.79; 1 study, 494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to indirectness).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified limited evidence on interventions for preventing delirium in older people in LTC. A software-based intervention to identify medications that could contribute to delirium risk and trigger a pharmacist-led medication review, probably reduces incidence of delirium in older people in institutional LTC. This is based on one large RCT in the US and may not be practical in other countries or settings which do not have comparable information technology services available in care homes. In the educational intervention aimed at identifying risk factors for delirium and developing bespoke solutions within care homes, it was not possible to determine the effect of the intervention on delirium incidence, prevalence or mortality. This evidence is based on a small feasibility trial. Our review identified three ongoing trials of multicomponent delirium prevention interventions. We identified no trials of pharmacological agents. Future trials of multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention interventions for older people in LTC are needed to help inform the provision of evidence-based care for this vulnerable group.
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.
Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition in elderly people (ie, those aged 65 years or older) that is common, serious, costly, under-recognised, and often fatal. A formal cognitive assessment and history of acute onset of symptoms are necessary for diagnosis. In view of the complex multifactorial causes of delirium, multicomponent non-pharmacological risk factor approaches are the most effective strategy for prevention. No convincing evidence shows that pharmacological prevention or treatment is effective. Drug reduction for sedation and analgesia and non-pharmacological approaches are recommended. Delirium offers opportunities to elucidate brain pathophysiology--it serves both as a marker of brain vulnerability with decreased reserve and as a potential mechanism for permanent cognitive damage. As a potent indicator of patients' safety, delirium provides a target for system-wide process improvements. Public health priorities include improvements in coding, reimbursement from insurers, and research funding, and widespread education for clinicians and the public about the importance of delirium.
OBJECTIVES: Hip fractures are common, morbid, and costly health events that threaten independence and function of older patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if orthogeriatric collaboration models improve outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Articles in English and Spanish languages were searched in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry from 1992 to 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they described an inpatient multidisciplinary approach to hip fracture management involving an orthopaedic surgeon and a geriatrician. Studies were grouped into 3 following categories: routine geriatric consultation, geriatric ward with orthopaedic consultation, and shared care. After independent review of 1480 citations by 2 authors, 18 studies (9094 patients) were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: In-hospital mortality, length of stay, and long-term mortality outcomes were collected. DATA SYNTHESIS: A random effects model meta-analysis determined whether orthogeriatric collaboration was associated with improved outcomes. The overall meta-analysis found that orthogeriatric collaboration was associated with a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality [relative risk 0.60; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.43-0.84) and long-term mortality (relative risk 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). Length of stay (standardized mean difference -0.25; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.05) was significantly reduced, particularly in the shared care model (standardized mean difference -0.61; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.28), but heterogeneity limited this interpretation. Other variables such as time to surgery, delirium, and functional status were measured infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports orthogeriatric collaboration to improve mortality after hip repair. Further study is needed to determine the best model of orthogeriatric collaboration and if these partnerships improve functional outcomes.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of peri-operative interventions in decreasing the incidence of postoperative delirium. An electronic search of four databases was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. We included randomised controlled trials of non-cardiac surgery with a peri-operative intervention and that reported postoperative delirium, and identified 29 trials. Meta-analysis revealed that peri-operative geriatric consultation (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.67) and lighter anaesthesia (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.27-5.56) were associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative delirium. For the other interventions, the point estimate suggested possible protection with prophylactic haloperidol (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36-1.05), bright light therapy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03-1.19) and general as opposed to regional anaesthesia (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-1.23). This meta-analysis has shown that peri-operative geriatric consultations with multicomponent interventions and lighter anaesthesia are potentially effective in decreasing the incidence of postoperative delirium.
PURPOSE: The concept behind constant observation is not new. Whilst traditionally performed by nursing staff, it is now commonly performed by sitters. Details surrounding the usage, job description, training, clinical and cost effectiveness of sitters are not known; hence the reason for this review.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed from the years 1960 to October 2011. The definition for sitter used in the articles was accepted for this review.
RESULTS: From this review, it is evident that sitters are being employed in a variety of settings. The question of which type of person would provide the most benefit in the sitter role is still not clear; whilst sitters have typically included family and volunteers, it may be trained volunteers who may offer the most cost-effective solution. The paucity of information available regarding the training and assessments of sitters and the lack of formal guidelines regulating sitters' use results in a lack of information available regarding these sitters, and current available evidence is conflicting regarding the benefits in terms of cost and clinical outcome. The only strong evidence relating to clinical benefit comes from the use of fully-trained sitters as part of a multi-interventional program (i.e., HELP) CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports a role for the sitter as part of the management of patients with delirium. The most cost-effective sitter role appears to be trained volunteers. Further research is needed to determine the specific type of training required for the sitter role. The creation of a national set of regulations or guidelines would provide safeguards in the industry to ensure safe and effective patient care.
Delirium, an acute decline in attention and cognition, occurs among hospitalized patients at rates estimated to range from 14% to 56% and increases the risk for morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of in-facility multicomponent delirium prevention programs. A search of 6 databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) was conducted through September 2012. Randomized, controlled trials; controlled clinical trials; interrupted time series; and controlled before-after studies with a prospective postintervention portion were eligible for inclusion. The evidence from 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria suggests that most multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing onset of delirium in at-risk patients in a hospital setting. Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of such programs in other care settings. Future comparative effectiveness studies with standardized protocols are needed to identify which components in multicomponent interventions are most effective for delirium prevention.
INTRODUCTION: The ideal measures to prevent postoperative delirium remain unestablished. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the significance of potential interventions. METHODS: The PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. Two researchers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English before August 2012. Additional sources included reference lists from reviews and related articles from 'Google Scholar'. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on interventions seeking to prevent postoperative delirium in adult patients were included. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed using predefined data fields and scoring system. Meta-analysis was accomplished for studies that used similar strategies. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative delirium. We further tested whether interventions effective in preventing postoperative delirium shortened the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We identified 38 RCTs with interventions ranging from perioperative managements to pharmacological, psychological or multicomponent interventions. Meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with less delirium compared to sedation produced by other drugs (two RCTs with 415 patients, pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 0.95). Both typical (three RCTs with 965 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.93) and atypical antipsychotics (three RCTs with 627 patients, RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.50) decreased delirium occurrence when compared to placebos. Multicomponent interventions (two RCTs with 325 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.86) were effective in preventing delirium. No difference in the incidences of delirium was found between: neuraxial and general anesthesia (four RCTs with 511 patients, RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.50); epidural and intravenous analgesia (three RCTs with 167 patients, RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.43) or acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and placebo (four RCTs with 242 patients, RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.44). Effective prevention of postoperative delirium did not shorten the length of hospital stay (10 RCTs with 1,636 patients, pooled SMD (standard mean difference) = -0.06; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The included studies showed great inconsistencies in definition, incidence, severity and duration of postoperative delirium. Meta-analysis supported dexmedetomidine sedation, multicomponent interventions and antipsychotics were useful in preventing postoperative delirium.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the Acute Care for Elders (ACE) model and introduced in the acute phase of illness or injury, with that of usual care.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled and quasi-experimental trials with parallel comparison groups retrieved from multiple sources.
SETTING: Acute care geriatric and nongeriatric hospital units.
PARTICIPANTS: Acutely ill or injured adults (N = 6,839) with an average age of 81.
INTERVENTIONS: Acute geriatric unit care characterized by one or more ACE components: patient-centered care, frequent medical review, early rehabilitation, early discharge planning, prepared environment.
MEASUREMENTS: Falls, pressure ulcers, delirium, functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital and hospital admission statuses, length of hospital stay, discharge destination (home or nursing home), mortality, costs, and hospital readmissions.
RESULTS: Acute geriatric unit care was associated with fewer falls (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.29-0.88), less delirium (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61-0.88), less functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital admission status (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78-0.97), shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.61, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.05), fewer discharges to a nursing home (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68-0.99), lower costs (WMD = -$245.80, 95% CI = -$446.23 to -$45.38), and more discharges to home (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.10). A nonsignificant trend toward fewer pressure ulcers was observed. No differences were found in functional decline between baseline hospital admission status and discharge, mortality, or hospital readmissions.
CONCLUSION: Acute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the ACE model and introduced during the acute phase of older adults' illness or injury, improves patient- and system-level outcomes.
Delirium is a common and distressing mental disorder. It is often caused by a combination of stressor events in susceptible people, particularly older people living with frailty and dementia. Adults living in institutional long-term care (LTC) are at particularly high risk of delirium. An episode of delirium increases risks of admission to hospital, development or worsening of dementia and death. Multicomponent interventions can reduce the incidence of delirium by a third in the hospital setting. However, it is currently unclear whether interventions to prevent delirium in LTC are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in older people in institutional long-term care settings.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) 's Specialised Register of dementia trials (dementia.cochrane.org/our-trials-register), to 27 February 2019. The search was sufficiently sensitive to identify all studies relating to delirium. We ran additional separate searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), major healthcare databases, trial registers and grey literature sources to ensure that the search was comprehensive.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs) of single and multicomponent, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in older people (aged 65 years and over) in permanent LTC residence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were prevalence, incidence and severity of delirium; and mortality. Secondary outcomes included falls, hospital admissions and other adverse events; cognitive function; new diagnoses of dementia; activities of daily living; quality of life; and cost-related outcomes. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. For each outcome, we assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included three trials with 3851 participants. All three were cluster-RCTs. Two of the trials were of complex, single-component, non-pharmacological interventions and one trial was a feasibility trial of a complex, multicomponent, non-pharmacological intervention. Risk of bias ratings were mixed across the three trials. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the interventions, we did not combine the results statistically, but produced a narrative summary.It was not possible to determine the effect of a hydration-based intervention on delirium incidence (RR 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 4.00; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision). This study did not assess delirium prevalence, severity or mortality.The introduction of a computerised system to identify medications that may contribute to delirium risk and trigger a medication review was probably associated with a reduction in delirium incidence (12-month HR 0.42, CI 0.34 to 0.51; 1 study, 7311 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias) but probably had little or no effect on mortality (HR 0.88, CI 0.66 to 1.17; 1 study, 9412 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision), hospital admissions (HR 0.89, CI 0.72 to 1.10; 1 study, 7599 participant-months; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision) or falls (HR 1.03, CI 0.92 to 1.15; 1 study, 2275 participant-months; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). Delirium prevalence and severity were not assessed.In the enhanced educational intervention study, aimed at changing practice to address key delirium risk factors, it was not possible to determine the effect of the intervention on delirium incidence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.39; 1 study, 137 resident months; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision) or delirium prevalence (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.19; 1 study, 160 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was probably little or no effect on mortality (RR 0.82, CI 0.50 to 1.34; 1 study, 215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision). The intervention was probably associated with a reduction in hospital admissions (RR 0.67, CI 0.57 to 0.79; 1 study, 494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to indirectness).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Our review identified limited evidence on interventions for preventing delirium in older people in LTC. A software-based intervention to identify medications that could contribute to delirium risk and trigger a pharmacist-led medication review, probably reduces incidence of delirium in older people in institutional LTC. This is based on one large RCT in the US and may not be practical in other countries or settings which do not have comparable information technology services available in care homes. In the educational intervention aimed at identifying risk factors for delirium and developing bespoke solutions within care homes, it was not possible to determine the effect of the intervention on delirium incidence, prevalence or mortality. This evidence is based on a small feasibility trial. Our review identified three ongoing trials of multicomponent delirium prevention interventions. We identified no trials of pharmacological agents. Future trials of multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention interventions for older people in LTC are needed to help inform the provision of evidence-based care for this vulnerable group.
