Background: Delirium is a serious neuropsychiatric syndrome frequently experienced by palliative care inpatients. This syndrome is under-recognized by clinicians. While screening increases recognition, it is not a routine practice. Aim and design: This systematic review aims to examine methods, quality, and results of delirium prevalence and incidence studies in palliative care inpatient populations and discuss implications for delirium screening. Data sources: A systematic search of the literature identified prospective studies reporting on delirium prevalence and/or incidence in inpatient palliative care adult populations from 1980 to 2012. Papers not in English or those reporting the occurrence of symptoms not specifically identified as delirium were excluded. Results: Of the eight included studies, the majority (98.9%) involved participants (1079) with advanced cancer. Eight different screening and assessment tools were used. Delirium incidence ranged from 3% to 45%, while delirium prevalence varied, with a range of: 13.3%-42.3% at admission, 26%-62% during admission, and increasing to 58.8%-88% in the weeks or hours preceding death. Studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Fourth Edition reported higher prevalence (42%-88%) and incidence (40.2%-45%), while incidence rates were higher in studies that screened participants at least daily (32.8%-45%). Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium subtype (68%-86% of cases). Conclusion: The prevalence and incidence of delirium in palliative care inpatient settings supports the need for screening. However, there is limited consensus on assessment measures or knowledge of implications of delirium screening for inpatients and families. Further research is required to develop standardized methods of delirium screening, assessment, and management that are acceptable to inpatients and families.Palliative Medicine 27(6) 486 -498
Background: Delirium is a common and distressing neurocognitive condition that frequently affects patients in palliative care settings and is often underdiagnosed. Aim: Expanding on a 2013 review, this systematic review examines the incidence and prevalence of delirium across all palliative care settings. Design: This systematic review and meta-analyses were prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment. Data sources: Five electronic databases were examined for primary research studies published between 1980 and 2018. Studies on adult, non-intensive care and non-postoperative populations, either receiving or eligible to receive palliative care, underwent dual reviewer screening and data extraction. Studies using standardized delirium diagnostic criteria or valid assessment tools were included. Results: Following initial screening of 2596 records, and full-text screening of 153 papers, 42 studies were included. Patient populations diagnosed with predominantly cancer ( n = 34) and mixed diagnoses ( n = 8) were represented. Delirium point prevalence estimates were 4%–12% in the community, 9%–57% across hospital palliative care consultative services, and 6%–74% in inpatient palliative care units. The prevalence of delirium prior to death across all palliative care settings ( n = 8) was 42%–88%. Pooled point prevalence on admission to inpatient palliative care units was 35% (confidence interval = 0.29–0.40, n = 14). Only one study had an overall low risk of bias. Varying delirium screening and diagnostic practices were used. Conclusion: Delirium is prevalent across all palliative care settings, with one-third of patients delirious at the time of admission to inpatient palliative care. Study heterogeneity limits meta-analyses and highlights the future need for rigorous studies.
Supporting the development of palliative care nursing delirium recognition and assessment practice requires attending to a range of barriers and enablers at the patient and family, health professional, and system levels.
Context. In end-of-life care, delirium is often not recognized and poses unique management challenges, especially in the case of refractory delirium in the terminal phase.Objectives. To review: delirium in the terminal phase context, specifically in relation to recognition issues; the decision-making processes and management strategies regarding its reversibility; the potential refractoriness of delirium to symptomatic treatment; and the role of sedation in refractory delirium.
Methods.We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant electronic database literature searches (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) to inform this narrative review.Results. The overall management strategy for delirium at the end of life is directed by the patient's prognosis in association with the patient's goals of care. As symptoms of delirium are often refractory in the terminal phase, especially in the case of agitated delirium, the judicious use of palliative sedation is frequently required. However, there remains a lack of high level evidence for the management of delirium in the terminal phase, including the role of antipsychotics and optimal sedation strategies. For the family and health care staff, clear communication, education and emotional support are vital components to assist with decision making and direct the treatment care plan.
Conclusion.Further research on the effectiveness of delirium management strategies in the terminal phase for patients and their families is required. Further validation of assessment tools for diagnostic screening and severity measurement are needed in this patient population.
The findings of this study expands our understanding of how palliative care nurses' capacity to recognise and assess patients' delirium symptoms in the inpatient setting could be strengthened.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.