Effectiveness of Interprofessional Consultation-Based Interventions for Delirium: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional geriatric consultation teams and multicomponent interventions are established models for delirium care. They are combined in interprofessional consultative delirium team interventions; however, insight into this novel approach is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness and core components of consultation-based interventions for delirium. METHOD: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ProQuest. Data on core intervention components, outcomes, facilitators, and barriers were extracted. RESULTS: 10 studies were included. Core intervention components were systematic delirium screening, ongoing consultation, implementation of non-pharmacologic and pharmacological interventions, and staff education. Of the included studies, 1/6 found a significant reduction in delirium incidence, 1/2 a reduction in delirium duration, and 2/3 found a reduction in falls. Facilitators and barriers to implementation were discussed. CONCLUSION: There was consistency in team structure and core components, however intervention operationalization and effectiveness varied widely. There is some evidence that this model is effective for reducing delirium and its sequelae.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".