No abstract

Abstract:Background and purpose: Delirium is a common complication in acute stroke yet there is uncertainty regarding how best to screen for and diagnose delirium after stroke. We sought to establish how delirium after stroke is identified, its incidence rates and factors predicting its development. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating delirium in acute stroke. We searched The Cochrane Collaboration, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, British Nursing Index, PEDro and OT Seeker in October 2010.Results: 3127 citations were screened, full text of 60 titles and abstracts were read, of which 20 studies published between 1984 and 2010 were included in this review. The methods most commonly used to identify delirium were generic assessment tools such as the Delirium Rating Scale (n=5) or the Confusion Assessment Method (n=2) or both (n=2). The incidence of delirium in acute stroke ranged from 2.3% to 66%, with our meta-analysis random effects approach placing the rate at 26% (95% CI: 19-33). Of the 11 studies reporting risk factors for delirium, increased age, aphasia, neglect or dysphagia, visual disturbance and elevated cortisol levels were associated with the development of delirium in at least one study. The outcomes associated with the condition are increased morbidity and mortality. Conclusions: Delirium is found in around 26% of stroke patients. Difference in diagnostic and screening procedures could explain the wide variation in frequency of delirium. There are a number of factors that may predict the development of the condition. Title: Delirium in acute stroke: screening tools, incidence rates and predictors -a systematic review. Suggested Reviewers: Powered by Editorial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Authors AbstractBackground and purpose Delirium is a common complication in acute stroke yet there is uncertainty regarding how best to

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure upon healthcare resources resulting in compromised health services. Enforced national lockdown led to people being unable to access essential services in addition to limiting contact with social support networks. The novel coronavirus, and subsequent condition known as long covid were not well-understood and clinicians were not supported by existing guidelines or pathways. Our study explored people's experiences of healthcare during this period with a person-centered “lens.”Methods: Ninety-seven people participated in our online survey about their experiences of the pandemic, particularly while socially isolated and their experiences of healthcare. Following completion of the survey, 11 of these participants agreed to further semi-structured interviews to explore this further in their own words. Interview conversations were transcribed, checked; together with the responses to open questions in the survey. The data were then analyzed thematically by members of the research team. We conducted framework analysis from a post-positivist perspective, using the Person-centered Practice Framework to explore participants' experiences.Results: There were few examples of people describing person-centered care. People experienced barriers to accessing support, and negative experiences of care that represented complexities enacting person-centered care at each level of the framework (processes, practice environment, prerequisites, and macro context). These barriers were influenced greatly by the pandemic, for example, with health professionals being harder to access. Some experiences related to the ways in which health professionals responded to the context, for example, positive examples included active listening, recognition of people's experiences, seeking to find out more, and engaging in collaborative problem-solving.Discussion: People want to feel heard, supported to navigate healthcare systems, source trustworthy information, find appropriate services, and collaborate in learning and problem-solving with healthcare professionals. There have been enormous challenges to the provision of healthcare throughout the pandemic. Moving forward is crucial with emphasis on overcoming barriers to person-centered healthcare. This should focus on steps now and also in planning for the possibility of further rapid changes in the demand for and provision of healthcare.

Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people’s experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified.DesignA two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people’s experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams).SettingStage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.ParticipantsAnyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience.Main outcome measuresDescriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.ResultsOf those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1–54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied ‘other’ symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations.ConclusionsRecommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.

Delirium is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. In the acute stroke setting, delirium identification is challenging due to the complexity of cognitive screening in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore how members of interprofessional stroke-unit teams identified and responded to a potential delirium in a patient. Online focus groups and interviews utilizing case vignettes were conducted with 15 participants: nurses, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, and physiotherapists working in acute stroke services. Participants’ understandings of delirium varied, most participants did not identify the symptoms of a possible hypoactive delirium, and nearly all participants discussed delirium symptoms in tentative terms. Aspects of interprofessional working were discussed through the expression of distinct roles around delirium identification. Although participants demonstrated an ethos of person-focused care, there are ongoing challenges involved in early identification and management of delirium in stroke survivors.