Prevalence of Delirium in Advance Cancer Patients Admitted in Hospice Centre and Outcome after Palliative Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The assessment of prevalence of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted in hospice centre and outcome after palliative intervention. The possible related risk factors for development of delirium. Material and Methods: This was prospective analytic study done at hospice centre attached with tertiary cancer hospital in Ahmedabad during August 2019 - July 2021. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Committee. We selected patients according to following inclusion criteria (all patient admitted to hospice centre above 18 years, with advance cancer disease and on best supportive care) and exclusion criteria (Lack of informed consent, Inability to participate in study due to mentally retard or coma). The following information were collected: age, gender, address, type of cancer, comorbidities, history of substance abuse, history of (h/o) palliative chemotherapy or radiotherapy within last 3month, general condition, ESAS (Edmonton symptom assessment scale), ECOG (Eastern cooperative oncology group), PaP score (palliative prognostic score), medication including opioids, NSAIDs (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), steroids, antibiotic, adjuvant analgesic, PPI (Proton pump inhibitor), anti-emetic etc. Delirium diagnosis was based on diagnostic criterion of DSM-IV text revised and MDAS. Results: In our study we found prevalence of delirium was 31.29% in advanced cancer patients admitted to hospice centre. We found most common type of delirium is hypoactive (34.7%) and mixed subtype (34.7%) followed by hyperactive (30.4%) delirium. Resolution of delirium was higher among hyperactive delirium (78.57%) followed by mixed subtype (50%) and hypoactive (12.5%). Mortality was higher among patient with hypoactive subtype (81.25%) followed by mixed (43.75%) and hyperactive delirium (14.28%). Conclusion: An identification and assessment of delirium is vital for acceptable end of life care within the palliative care in light of the fact that the presence of delirium is related with morbidity, mortality, prolonged ICU hospitalization, expanded time on a ventilator, and by and large more prominent medical services costs. Clinicians should utilize one of a few approved delirium assessment tools to help evaluate and archive cognitive function. Prevention and recognizing the clinical reason for delirium are generally the best method for diminishing the morbidity from delirium. The study results demonstrate that multi component delirium management or projects are generally proficient to lessen the prevalence and negative outcomes of delirium. It was found that palliative care intervention has quite a positive outcome as it not only focus on the mental health of the patients but also of family members who go through the same amount of distress and also help them to communicate properly and manage to settle the mental state and end the life without pain and distress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".