A rapid scoping review of barriers and facilitators of implementing delirium prevention practices in adult critical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Delirium is a serious complication of critical care that can have lasting effects on the patient’s life. Much of the work to date about delirium has been focused on identifying delirium risk factors, developing tools for screening and recognizing delirium, and testing interventions to treat those diagnosed with delirium. Despite evidence, implementing known delirium prevention and management strategies remains abysmal. This review aimed to identify and summarize literature reporting on the barriers and facilitators of implementing delirium prevention and management practices in adult critical care. Methods: A rapid scoping review of the literature was conducted. The databases CINAHL and Ovid Medline were searched, and forward and backward reference checking was completed. Data abstraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Results: After review of 74 full-text papers, 32 articles were included in the review. The articles were published between 2008 and 2022, with the majority conducted in the United States (53%). The barriers and facilitators of delirium prevention and management practices described in the reviewed articles were categorized as patient-level, clinician-level, and organizational-level factors. Conclusion: The review found consistency among the published results. However, opportunities to continue to grow research in this area remain; specifically in examining the opportunity to understand better the decision-making process surrounding how care is prioritized when taking into consideration the present barriers and facilitators and the opportunity to use implementation science to create and sustain change in the practice of delirium prevention and management strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".