BACKGROUND: Delirium may persist for weeks or months, and discharging elderly patients quickly from acute care facilities is not uncommon. Therefore, the adverse impact of delirium on loss of independence may occur in the postacute setting rather than in the hospital. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence of delirium, delirium symptoms, and severity assessed at admission to postacute facilities. METHODS: Subjects were recruited from seven Boston-area skilled nursing facilities specializing in postacute care. Assessment instruments included the Mini-Mental Status Exam, Delirium Symptom Interview, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, and Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) Diagnostic Algorithm. Delirium status was categorized into four groups: full, two or more symptoms, one symptom, and no delirium. Descriptive statistics were calculated and chi-square analyses and an analysis-of-variance were used to examine delirium characteristics by delirium group. RESULTS: Among 2158 subjects, approximately 16% had full CAM-defined delirium at admission to the postacute facility. In addition, nearly 13% of the subjects had two or more symptoms of delirium, approximately 40% had one delirium symptom, and 32% had no symptoms of delirium. In a comparison of the group with no symptoms of delirium with that with CAM-defined delirium, there was a significant trend toward (a) older age, (b) lower scores on the Mini-Mental Status Exam, (c) more Delirium Symptom Interview symptoms, and (d) higher Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale Scores. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that 16% of admissions to postacute facilities have CAM-defined delirium, and over two thirds had at least one delirium symptom. It is not known whether or not postacute staff have the training necessary to detect or manage delirium. Managing delirium may require different strategies and techniques in a postacute setting, thereby requiring further research.
BACKGROUND:Delirium may persist for weeks or months, and discharging elderly patients quickly from acute care facilities is not uncommon. Therefore, the adverse impact of delirium on loss of independence may occur in the postacute setting rather than in the hospital. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence of delirium, delirium symptoms, and severity assessed at admission to postacute facilities. METHODS: Subjects were recruited from seven Boston-area skilled nursing facilities specializing in postacute care. Assessment instruments included the Mini-Mental Status Exam, Delirium Symptom Interview, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, and Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) Diagnostic Algorithm. Delirium status was categorized into four groups: full, two or more symptoms, one symptom, and no delirium. Descriptive statistics were calculated and chi-square analyses and an analysis-of-variance were used to examine delirium characteristics by delirium group. RESULTS: Among 2158 subjects, approximately 16% had full CAM-defined delirium at admission to the postacute facility. In addition, nearly 13% of the subjects had two or more symptoms of delirium, approximately 40% had one delirium symptom, and 32% had no symptoms of delirium. In a comparison of the group with no symptoms of delirium with that with CAM-defined delirium, there was a significant trend toward (a) older age, (b) lower scores on the Mini-Mental Status Exam, (c) more Delirium Symptom Interview symptoms, and (d) higher Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale Scores. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that 16% of admissions to postacute facilities have CAM-defined delirium, and over two thirds had at least one delirium symptom. It is not known whether or not postacute staff have the training necessary to detect or manage delirium. Managing delirium may require different strategies and techniques in a postacute setting, thereby requiring further research.
Authors: Ann M Kolanowski; Nikki L Hill; Esra Kurum; Donna M Fick; Andrea M Yevchak; Paula Mulhall; Linda Clare; Michael Valenzuela Journal: Arch Psychiatr Nurs Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 2.218
Authors: Peter R Swiatek; Shepard P Johnson; Lu Wang; Mochuan Liu; Ting-Ting Chung; Kevin C Chung Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Frances M Yang; Edward R Marcantonio; Sharon K Inouye; Dan K Kiely; James L Rudolph; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Edward R Marcantonio; Margaret A Bergmann; Dan K Kiely; E John Orav; Richard N Jones Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ann Kolanowski; Jacqueline Mogle; Donna M Fick; Nikki Hill; Paula Mulhall; Jamie Nadler; Elise Colancecco; Liza Behrens Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Dan K Kiely; Edward R Marcantonio; Sharon K Inouye; Michele L Shaffer; Margaret A Bergmann; Frances M Yang; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kumar Dharmarajan; Angela F Hsieh; Zhenqiu Lin; Héctor Bueno; Joseph S Ross; Leora I Horwitz; José Augusto Barreto-Filho; Nancy Kim; Susannah M Bernheim; Lisa G Suter; Elizabeth E Drye; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lauren Massimo; Elizabeth Munoz; Nikki Hill; Jacqueline Mogle; Paula Mulhall; Corey T McMillan; Linda Clare; David Vandenbergh; Donna Fick; Ann Kolanowski Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 3.485