MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159687193 · doi:10.1345/aph.1q332

Current Perceptions and Practices Surrounding the Recognition and Treatment of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: A Survey of 250 Critical Care Pharmacists from Eight States

2011· article· en· W2159687193 on OpenAlex
John W. Devlin, Shubha Bhat, Russel J. Roberts, Yoanna Skrobik

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumIntensive care unitPerceptionIntensive care medicineIntensive careUnit (ring theory)Family medicinePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are key members of the intensive care unit (ICU) team; however, few data exist regarding their clinical role, perceptions, and current practices in recognizing and managing delirium. OBJECTIVE: To describe current practices and perceptions of ICU pharmacists regarding delirium recognition and treatment relative to current recommendations. METHODS: A self-administered survey was distributed to 457 pharmacists in 8 states who are members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine or the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and who spend 25% or more of their time providing clinical ICU pharmacy services. RESULTS: A total of 250 (55%) pharmacists responded. A delirium screening tool was routinely used by few (7%) pharmacists. Lack of time (34%) and the belief that screening is a nursing role (24%) were key barriers to pharmacist screenings. Most (85%) said that delirium should be pharmacologically managed; 68% responded that 2 or more medications should be used. The treatments of first choice included haloperidol (76%), an atypical antipsychotic (14%), or a benzodiazepine (10%). Frequently used treatments were haloperidol (87%), quetiapine (59%), and lorazepam (47%). Haloperidol was perceived by many (42%) to have 1 or more randomized trials supporting its use for delirium and Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication (34%). Haloperidol was most often administered on a scheduled basis (62%), intravenously (92%), and at a daily dose of 5-10 mg (58%). While the QTc interval was frequently measured at least once per shift using an electrocardiogram strip (64%), it was not routinely measured in 20% of ICUs, and 60% continued haloperidol when the QTc exceeded 500 msec. CONCLUSIONS: Current practices and perceptions surrounding recognition and treatment of delirium in patients in the ICU by the critical care pharmacists surveyed are heterogeneous. Antipsychotics are frequently recommended by pharmacists for delirium treatment, despite a lack of rigorous evidence to support their use. While pharmacists are ideally suited to lead delirium recognition efforts and provide treatment recommendations in this area, these roles need further elucidation. The optimal pedagogical strategy to support these efforts remains unclear, and the potential impact of pharmacists' efforts on patients' outcomes is unknown.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.339
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it