Timely detection of delirium might reduce the negative outcomes of delirium in the long term. The Nu-DESC and CAM appear to be the most adequate instruments for detecting delirium. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ObjectivesThe objectives of the study are to study daily hospital practice regarding detection and management and to study hyperactive and hypoactive delirium of older patients during their hospitalization.MethodsA retrospective cohort study evaluating care as usual for older hospitalized patients with delirium at Maastricht University Medical Center+, a university hospital in the Netherlands, was performed. Inclusion criteria were older hospitalized patients (65+ years), diagnosed with delirium between 1 January and 31 December 2014. Data were retrieved from the patients' medical files. Delirium was categorized as hyperactive or hypoactive. Primary outcome measures were prevalence and management (pharmacological, reorientation, screening for delirium and delirium consultations, and physical restraints). Secondary outcomes were short‐term adverse outcomes.ResultsPrevalence of delirium was 5% (N = 401), of which 77% (n = 307) was hyperactive and 23% (n = 94) was hypoactive. Significantly, more patients with a hyperactive delirium received medication to manage the delirium than patients with a hypoactive delirium (89% vs. 77%, respectively, p = 0.004). No other significant differences between the subtypes were found.ConclusionThere was probably a strong under‐recognition of delirium. Drugs were the main intervention of choice, especially for patients with hyperactive delirium. The two subtypes did not differ on non‐pharmacological management. The retrospective nature of this study sheds light on the status quo of recognition, management, and care as usual for the different delirium subtypes in daily hospital practice, which may help in forming new guidelines and protocols for the detection and treatment of delirium for older patients in hospitals.

BackgroundDelirium in older hospitalised patients is a common and serious disorder. Polypharmacy and certain medications are risk factors for developing delirium. A medication review could benefit older hospitalised patients with delirium.Objectives(1) Evaluate the effects of medication review on length of delirium, length of hospital stay, mortality, and discharge destination; and (2) describe and analyse the proposed changes to medication and its implementation by the treating physician.SettingThe study was conducted at Maastricht University Medical Centre+.MethodsWe compared two cohorts of older patients with delirium: the first cohort from before introducing the medication review, and a second cohort 5 months after introduction of the medication review. Data were extracted from the patients’ digital medical records.ResultsA significant interaction effect of cohort and number of medications taken by the patient was found for duration of delirium: patients from the second cohort taking between zero and six medications had significantly shorter delirious episodes than patients in the first cohort. This effect bordered on significance for patients taking between seven and 11 medications, but disappeared for patients taking 12 or more medications. No other statistically significant differences were found between the cohorts. The proposed changes in medication were implemented for 71% of the patients.ConclusionA medication review seems to significantly decrease the length of an older patient’s delirious episode. Given the clinical relevance of these findings, we advise medication reviews for all older patients who are delirious or are at risk of developing delirium.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-018-0523-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDelirium is a common and serious complication of hospitalisation in older adults. It can lead to prolonged hospital stay, institutionalisation, and even death. However, it often remains unrecognised or is not managed adequately. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of an educational intervention for nursing staff on three aspects of clinical practice concerning delirium in older hospitalised patients: the frequency and correctness of screening for delirium using the 13-item Delirium Observation Screening score (DOS), and the frequency of geriatric consultations requested for older patients. The a priori expectations were that there would be an increase in all three of these outcomes.MethodsWe designed an educational intervention and implemented this on two inpatient hospital units. Before providing the educational session, the nursing staff was asked to fill out two questionnaires about delirium in older hospitalised patients. The educational session was then tailored to each unit based on the results of these questionnaires. Additionally, posters and flyers with information on the screening and management of delirium were provided and participants were shown where to find additional information. Relevant data (outcomes, demographics and background patient data) were collected retrospectively from digital medical files. Data was retrospectively collected for four different time points: three pre-test and one post-test.ResultsThere was a significant increase in frequency of delirium screening (P = 0.001), and both units showed an increase in the correctness of the screening. No significant effect of the educational intervention was found for the proportion of patients who received a geriatric consultation (P = 0.083).ConclusionThe educational intervention was fairly successful in making positive changes in clinical practice: after the educational session an improvement in the frequency and correctness of screening for delirium was observed. A trend, though not significant, towards an increase in the proportion of geriatric consultations for older hospitalised patients was also observed.

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: