BackgroundDelirium is a common severe neuropsychiatric condition secondary to physical illness, which predominantly affects older adults in hospital. Prior to this study, the UK point prevalence of delirium was unknown. We set out to ascertain the point prevalence of delirium across UK hospitals and how this relates to adverse outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study across 45 UK acute care hospitals. Older adults aged 65 years and older were screened and assessed for evidence of delirium on World Delirium Awareness Day (14th March 2018). We included patients admitted within the previous 48 h, excluding critical care admissions.ResultsThe point prevalence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) delirium diagnosis was 14.7% (222/1507). Delirium presence was associated with higher Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS): CFS 4–6 (frail) (OR 4.80, CI 2.63–8.74), 7–9 (very frail) (OR 9.33, CI 4.79–18.17), compared to 1–3 (fit). However, higher CFS was associated with reduced delirium recognition (7–9 compared to 1–3; OR 0.16, CI 0.04–0.77). In multivariable analyses, delirium was associated with increased length of stay (+ 3.45 days, CI 1.75–5.07) and increased mortality (OR 2.43, CI 1.44–4.09) at 1 month. Screening for delirium was associated with an increased chance of recognition (OR 5.47, CI 2.67–11.21).ConclusionsDelirium is prevalent in older adults in UK hospitals but remains under-recognised. Frailty is strongly associated with the development of delirium, but delirium is less likely to be recognised in frail patients. The presence of delirium is associated with increased mortality and length of stay at one month. A national programme to increase screening has the potential to improve recognition.

Purpose Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes.

Delirium is the most common postoperative complication among patients over the age of 65 years. It is associated with increased morbidity and is a significant financial cost to healthcare systems.We aimed to improve the detection of delirium on the surgical wards of a tertiary surgical centre. This would take the form of completion of 4AT assessments (the 4 AT test for delirium, on admission and 1 day postoperatively). Prior to this project, the 4AT was in use in the surgical admission clerking paperwork for over 65 s, however, 4AT assessments were not routinely performed as part of day 1 postoperative assessment. By introducing routine postoperative assessment and reinforcing the importance of admission assessment, we hoped to allow for objective comparisons to be made about patients cognitive state and thereafter improve delirium identification.After a baseline snapshot data collection period, we conducted five (Plan, Do, Study, Act) cycles following which repeat snapshot data were collected. Improvement strategies included ‘tea-trolley’ teaching sessions, adhesive 4AT pro-forma, targeted accompaniment of specialty ward rounds with reminders to complete 4AT assessments and working with nursing staff to promote awareness of delirium among permanent non-rotating healthcare professionals.For the admission 4ATs, completion improved from a baseline of 74.1%–90.5% in cycle 5. Completion of postoperative 4AT assessments rose from 14.8% at baseline to 47.6% in cycle 5.We were able to improve the use of a delirium screening tool, (the 4AT) among the postoperative elderly population in this centre via the use of regular teaching sessions, targeted interventions on ward rounds as well working with non-rotating staff. Further improvements could be made by widening access to delirium champion programmes and including delirium as an outcome measure of national surgical audits such as the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.