Delirium is prevalent in older hospital inpatients and associated with adverse outcomes: results of a prospective multi-centre study on World Delirium Awareness Day

Background: Delirium is a common severe neuropsychiatric condition secondary to physical illness, which predominantly affects older adults in hospital. Prior to this study, the UK point prevalence of delirium was unknown. We set out to ascertain the point prevalence of delirium across UK hospitals and how this relates to adverse outcomes. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study across 45 UK acute care hospitals. Older adults aged 65 years and older were screened and assessed for evidence of delirium on World Delirium Awareness Day (14th March 2018). We included patients admitted within the previous 48 h, excluding critical care admissions. Results: The point prevalence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) delirium diagnosis was 14.7% (222/1507). Delirium presence was associated with higher Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS): CFS 4–6 (frail) (OR 4.80, CI 2.63–8.74), 7–9 (very frail) (OR 9.33, CI 4.79–18.17), compared to 1–3 (fit). However, higher CFS was associated with reduced delirium recognition (7–9 compared to 1–3; OR 0.16, CI 0.04–0.77). In multivariable analyses, delirium was associated with increased length of stay (+ 3.45 days, CI 1.75–5.07) and increased mortality (OR 2.43, CI 1.44–4.09) at 1 month. Screening for delirium was associated with an increased chance of recognition (OR 5.47, CI 2.67–11.21). Conclusions: Delirium is prevalent in older adults in UK hospitals but remains under-recognised. Frailty is strongly associated with the development of delirium, but delirium is less likely to be recognised in frail patients. The presence of delirium is associated with increased mortality and length of stay at one month. A national programme to increase screening has the potential to improve recognition

Palliative care competencies for geriatricians across Europe : a Delphi consensus study

Key summary points Aim to develop a set of specific palliative care competencies to be recommended for training at a postgraduate level of geriatricians across Europe. Findings A list of 35 palliative care competencies for geriatricians is now available for implementation in the different European countries. Message Future action are needed to support implementation and evaluation of the recommendations based upon key performance indicators within different health care systems. Purpose Integration of palliative care competencies with geriatric medicine is important for quality of care for older people, especially in the last years of their life. Therefore, knowledge and skills about palliative care for older people should be mandatory for geriatricians. The European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) has launched a postgraduate curriculum for geriatric medicine recently. Aim Based on this work, the Special Interest Group (SIG) on Palliative care in collaboration with the SIG in Education and Training aimed to develop a set of specific palliative care competencies to be recommended for training at a postgraduate level. Methods Competencies were defined using a modified Delphi technique based upon a Likert like rating scale. A template to kick off the first round and including 46 items was developed based on pre-existing competencies developed in Switzerland and Belgium. Results Three Delphi rounds were necessary to achieve full consensus. Experts came from 12 EU countries. In the first round, the wording of 13 competencies and the content of 10 competencies were modified. We deleted or merged ten competencies, mainly because they were not specific enough. At the end of the 2nd round, one competence was deleted and for three questions the wordings were modified. These modifications had the agreement of the participants during the last round. Conclusion A list of 35 palliative care competencies for geriatricians is now available for implementation in European countries

COVID-19 highlights the need for universal adoption of standards of medical care for physicians in nursing homes in Europe

The nursing home sector has seen a disproportionately high number of deaths as part of the COVID-19 pandemic. This reflects, in part, the frailty and vulnerability of older people living in care homes but has also, in part, been a consequence of the failure to include care homes in the systematic planning of a response to COVID, as well as a measure of neglect of standards and quality improvement in the sector. In response, the EUGMS published a set of medical standards of care developed in consultation with experts across its member national societies in 2015. The standards consisted of seven core principles of medical care for physicians working in nursing homes as a first step in developing a programme of clinical, academic and policy engagement in improving medical care for older people who are living and frequently also dying as residents in nursing homes. The gravity of the concerns arising for nursing home care from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as emerging insights on care improvement in nursing homes indicate that an update of these medical standards is timely. This was performed by the writing group from the original 2015 guidelines and is intended as an interim measure pending a more formal review incorporating a systematic review of emerging literature and a Delphi process

Diagnosing delirium in elderly Thai patients: Utilization of the CAM algorithm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Delirium is a common illness among elderly hospitalized patients. However, under-recognition of the condition by non-psychiatrically trained personnel is prevalent. This study investigated the performance of family physicians when detecting delirum in elderly hospitalized Thai patients using the Thai version of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) algorithm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Thai version of the CAM algorithm was developed, and three experienced Thai family physicians were trained in its use. The diagnosis of delirium was also carried out by four fully qualified psychiatrists using DSM-IV TR criteria, which can be considered the gold standard. Sixty-six elderly patients were assessed with MMSE Thai 2002, in order to evaluate whether they had dementia upon admission. Within three days of admission, each patient was interviewed separately by a psychiatrist using DSM-IV TR, and a family physician using the Thai version of the CAM algorithm, with both sets of interviewers diagnosing for delirium.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The CAM algorithm tool, as used by family physicians, demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 100.0%, with a PPV of 100.0% and an NPV of 90.6%. Interrater agreement between the family physicians and the psychiatrists was good (Cohen's Kappa = 0.91, p < 0.0001). The mean of the time the family physicians spent using CAM algorithm was significantly briefer than that of the psychiatrists using DSM-IV TR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Family physicians performed well when diagnosing delirium in elderly hospitalized Thai patients using the Thai version of the CAM algorithm, showing that this measurement tool is suitable for use by non-psychiatrically trained personnel, being short, quick, and easy to administer. However, proper training on use of the algorithm is required.</p

Development of a UK core dataset for geriatric medicine research: : a position statement and results from a Delphi consensus process

Funding AS and MW are funded by the Newcastle National Institute for Health (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, which also funded the initial meeting of academic clinicians in geriatric medicine during the Delphi process. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the NHS, or the Department of Health. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the contributions of members of the UK Geriatric Medicine Core Dataset Extended Working Group.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Barriers and facilitators to evidence based care of type 2 diabetes patients: experiences of general practitioners participating to a quality improvement program

Objective To evaluate the barriers and facilitators to high-quality diabetes care as experienced by general practitioners (GPs) who participated in an 18-month quality improvement program (QIP). This QIP was implemented to promote compliance with international guidelines. Methods Twenty out of the 120 participating GPs in the QIP underwent semi-structured interviews that focused on three questions: 'Which changes did you implement or did you observe in the quality of diabetes care during your participation in the QIP?' 'According to your experience, what induced these changes?' and 'What difficulties did you experience in making the changes?' Results Most GPs reported that enhanced knowledge, improved motivation, and a greater sense of responsibility were the key factors that led to greater compliance with diabetes care guidelines and consequent improvements in diabetes care. Other factors were improved communication with patients and consulting specialists and reliance on diabetes nurse educators. Some GPs were reluctant to collaborate with specialists, and especially with diabetes educators and dieticians. Others blamed poor compliance with the guidelines on lack of time. Most interviewees reported that a considerable minority of patients were unwilling to change their lifestyles. Conclusion Qualitative research nested in an experimental trial may clarify the improvements that a QIP may bring about in a general practice, provide insight into GPs' approach to diabetes care and reveal the program's limits. Implementation of a QIP encounters an array of cognitive, motivational, and relational obstacles that are embedded in a patient-healthcare provider relationshipGeert Goderis, Liesbeth Borgermans, Chantal Mathieu, Carine Van Den Broeke, Karen Hannes, Jan Heyrman and Richard Gro

Age and frailty are independently associated with increased COVID-19 mortality and increased care needs in survivors: results of an international multi-centre study

Introduction: Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with COVID-19, but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods: This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty, and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation, and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results: Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, IQR 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (&gt;80 vs 18–49: HR 3.57, CI 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 vs 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 vs 1–3: OR 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia, and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusions: Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age