None.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study was performed in eight intensive care units (ICUs) in six countries. The 10 predictors (age, APACHE-II, urgent and admission category, infection, coma, sedation, morphine use, urea level, metabolic acidosis) were collected within 24 hours after ICU admission. The confusion assessment method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) was used to identify ICU delirium. CAM-ICU screening compliance and inter-rater reliability measurements were used to secure the quality of the data. Permanent repository linkResults: 2,852 adult ICU patients were screened of which 1,824 (64%) were eligible for the study. Main reasons for exclusion were length of stay <1day (19.1%) and sustained coma (4.1%). CAM-ICU compliance was mean (SD) 82±16% and inter-rater reliability 0.87±0.17. The median delirium incidence was 22.5% (IQR 12.8%-36.6%). Although the incidence of all ten predictors differed significantly between centers, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the 8 participating centers remained good: 0.77 (95%CI:0.74-0.79). The linear predictor and intercept of the prediction rule were adjusted and resulted in improved recalibration of the PRE-DELIRIC model. Conclusions:In this multinational study we recalibrated the PRE-DELIRIC-model. Despite differences in the incidence of predictors between the centers in the different countries the performance of the PRE-DELIRICmodel remained good. Following validation of the PRE-DELIRIC model it may facilitate implementation of strategies to prevent delirium and aid improvements in delirium management of ICU patients.4

Background: Patients who are critically ill are at increased risk of hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia. Effective evidence based oral care may reduce the incidence of such iatrogenic infection. Aim:To provide an evidence-based British Association of Critical Care Nurses endorsed consensus paper for best practice relating to implementing oral care, with the intention of promoting patient comfort and reducing hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.Design: A nominal group technique was adopted. A consensus committee of adult critical care nursing experts from the United Kingdom met in 2018 to evaluate and review the literature relating to oral care, its application in reducing pneumonia in critically ill adults and to make recommendations for practice. An elected national board member for the British Association of Critical Care Nurses chaired the round table discussion.Methods: The committee focused on 5 aspects of oral care practice relating to critically ill adult patients. The evidence was evaluated for each practice within the context of reducing pneumonia in the mechanically ventilated patient or pneumonia in the nonventilated patient. The five practices included the frequency for oral care; tools for oral care; oral care technique; solutions used and oral care in the non-ventilated patient who is critically ill and is at risk of aspiration. The group searched the best available

As critical care nurses it is essential that we prepare patients and families for transfer to wards.

To provide nurses with an evidence‐based Position Statement on the standards patients and visitors should expect when visiting an adult critical care unit in the 21st century in the UK. The British Association of Critical Care Nurses (BACCN) is a leading organization for critical care nursing in the UK and regularly receives enquiries about best practice regarding visiting policies. Therefore, in keeping with the BACCN's commitment to provide evidence‐based guidance for nurses, a Position Statement on visiting practices in adult critical care units was commissioned. This brought together experts from the field of critical care nursing and representatives from patient and relatives' groups to review visiting practices and the literature and produce a Position Statement. An extensive search of the literature was undertaken using the following databases: Blackwell Synergy, CINAHL, Medline, Swetswise, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, National Electronic Library for Health, Institute for Healthcare Improvement and Google Scholar. After obtaining selected articles, the references from these articles were then evaluated for their relevance to this Position Statement and were retrieved. The evidence suggests a disparity between what nurses believe is best practice and what patients and visitors actually want. Historically, visitors have been perceived as being responsible for increasing noise, taking up space, taking up nursing time, hindering nursing care and spreading infection. The evidence reviewed for this Position Statement suggests there are many benefits to patients and nurses from visitors. There was no evidence to suggest that visitors pose a direct infection risk to patients. Clear visiting policies based on evidence will negate arbitrary decisions by nurses regarding who can visit and will lessen confusion and dispel myths which can only bring benefits to patients, staff and organizations. To make nurses aware of the physical and psychological benefits of visiting to patients. Visitors bring a positive energy to patients and can act as advocates. They can supply nurses with vital information about patients which will enable the nurse to provide more individualized care. Being cognizant of the evidence will help nurses develop policies on visiting which are up to date for the 21st century.