Implementation of Delirium Guidelines at the Intensive Care Unit

Delirium is associated with a prolonged ICU stay, a greater risk of death during ICU stay, and a poorer prognosis after discharge. Guidelines with comprehensive recommendations are available for the management of delirium in the ICU, including the management of pain and agitation, using an integrated and multidisciplinary approach. However, these guidelines are not routinely used in clinical practice despite their proven benefit. Implementation science offers tools and processes to improve the routine use of guidelines. The aim of the study described in this thesis was to investigate various aspects of the implementation of delirium guidelines. This study was coined the ‘ICU Delirium in Clinical Practice Implementation Evaluation’ (iDECePTIvE) study, and six ICU departments from the South-West Netherlands region participated

A systematic review of implementation strategies for assessment, prevention, and management of ICU delirium and their effect on clinical outcomes

Introduction: Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians' ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies' efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described. Results: We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies suc

Prospective multicentre multifaceted before-after implementation study of ICU delirium guidelines: a process evaluation

Objective We aimed to explore: the exposure of healthcare workers to a delirium guidelines implementation programme; effects on guideline adherence at intensive care unit (ICU) level; impact on knowledge and barriers, and experiences with the implementation. Design A mixed-methods process evaluation of a prospective multicentre implementation study. Setting Six ICUs. Participants 4449 adult ICU patients and 500 ICU professionals approximately. Intervention A tailored implementation programme. Main outcome measure Adherence to delirium guidelines recommendations at ICU level before, during and after implementation; knowledge and perceived barriers; and experiences with the implementation. Results Five of six ICUs were exposed to all implementation strategies as planned. More than 85% followed the required e-learnings; 92% of the nurses attended the clinical classroom lessons; five ICUs used all available implementation strategies and perceived to have implemented all guideline recommendations (>90%). Adherence to predefined performance indicators (PIs) at ICU level was only above the preset target (>85%) for delirium screening. For all other PIs, the inter-ICU variability was between 34% and 72%. The implementation of delirium guidelines was feasible and successful in resolving the majority of barriers found before the implementation. The improvement was well sustained 6months after full guideline implementation. Knowledge about delirium was improved (from 61% to 65%). The implementation programme was experienced as very successful. Conclusions Multifaceted implementation can improve and sustain adherence to delirium guidelines, is feasible and can largely be performed as planned. However, variability in delirium guideline adherence at individual ICUs remains a challenge, indicating the need for more tailoring at centre level

Pharmacogenomic response of low dose haloperidol in critically ill adults with delirium

Purpose: To characterize the pharmacogenomic response of low-dose haloperidol for delirium treatment in critically ill adults. Materials and methods: Single-center, pilot study of a convenience sample of ICU adults with delirium treated with low-dose IV haloperidol. Patients were evaluated for delirium with the ICDSC every 8 h. Serum haloperidol concentrations were collected on ICU days 2–6, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 genotypes were characterized and patients were categorized as extensive (EM), intermediate (IM) or poor metabolizers (PM). Results: The 22 patients (median age 67 [IQR 48,77] years; median APACHE III 81[IQR 54,181]; CYP2D6 [EM = 12, IM = 7, PM = 3], CYP3A [EM = 18, IM = 4]) received a median [IQR] daily haloperidol dose of 3.0 [2.4, 4.5] mg. After adjusting for age, SOFA, and ICU day, neither an association between CYP2D6 (IM p = .67/PM p = .25) or CYP3A4 (IM p = .44) metabolizer status and serum haloperidol concentrations was found. After adjusting for age, SOFA, and ICU day, neither an association between daily haloperidol dose (p = .77) or ICDSC score (p = .13) and serum haloperidol concentrations was found. No patient experienced QTc interval prolongation (≥500 ms). Conclusions: This pilot study, the first to evaluate the pharmacogenomic response of low-dose haloperidol when used to treat delirium in the ICU, suggests CYP2D6/CYP3A4 metabolizer status does not affect the serum haloperidol concentrations

Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands

Introduction Delirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of nonpharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in adult critically ill patients to reduce days spent with coma or delirium. Methods and analysis EuRIDICE is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study population consists of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute neurological injury who have delirium based on a positive Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment. Intervention is intravenous haloperidol 2.5mg (or matching placebo) every 8 hours, titrated daily based on ICDSC or CAMICU positivity to a maximum of 5mg every 8 hours, until delirium resolution or ICU discharge. Main study endpoint is delirium and coma-free days (DCFD) up to 14 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include (1) 28-day and 1-year mortality, (2) cognitive and functional performance at 3 and 12 months, (3) patient and family delirium and ICU experience, (4) psychological sequelae during and after ICU stay, (4) safety concerns associated with haloperidol use and (5) cost-effectiveness. Differences in DCFDs between haloperidol and placebo group will be analysed using Poisson regression analysis. Study recruitment started in February 2018 and continues. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC2017-511) and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. Its results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations