MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404570273 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afae248

World delirium awareness and quality survey in 2023—a worldwide point prevalence study

2024· article· en· W4404570273 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi Lindroth, Keibun Liu, Laura A. Szalacha, Shelly Ashkenazy, Giuseppe Bellelli, Mark van den Boogaard, Gideon A. Caplan, Chi Ryang Chung, Muhammed Elhadi, Mohan Gurjar, Gabriel Heras-La-Calle, Marie‐Madlen Jeitziner, Karla D. Krewulak, Tanya Mailhot, Alessandro Morandi, Ricardo Kenji Nawa, Esther S. Oh, Marie Oxenbøll Collet, Maria Carolina Paulino, Rebecca von Haken, Peter Nydahl

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium, an acute brain dysfunction, is proposed to be highly prevalent in clinical care and shown to significantly increase the risk of mortality and dementia. OBJECTIVES: To report on the global prevalence of clinically documented delirium and delirium-related clinical practices in wards caring for paediatric and adult patients in healthcare facilities. DESIGN: A prospective, cross-sectional, 39-question survey completed on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians or researchers with access to clinical data. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was the prevalence of clinically documented delirium at 8:00 a.m. (4 h) and 8:00 p.m. (±4 h). Secondary outcomes included delirium-related care practices and barriers to use. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multilevel modelling was completed. RESULTS: 1664 wards submitted surveys from 44 countries, reporting on delirium assessments at 8:00 a.m. (n = 36 048) and 8:00 p.m. (n = 32 867); 61% reported use of validated delirium assessment tools. At 8:00 a.m., 18% (n = 2788/15 458) and at 8:00 p.m., 17.7% (n = 2454/13 860) were delirium positive. Top prevention measures were pain management (86.7%), mobilisation (81.4%) and adequate fluids (80.4%). Frequently reported pharmacologic interventions were benzodiazepines (52.7%) and haloperidol (46.2%). Top barriers included the shortage of staff (54.3%), lack of time to educate staff (48.6%) and missing knowledge about delirium (38%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this study, approximately one out of five patients were reported as delirious. The reported high use of benzodiazepines needs further evaluation as it is not aligned with best-practice recommendations. Findings provide a benchmark for future quality improvement projects and research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207