James L Rudolph1, Kelly Doherty2, Brittany Kelly3, Jane A Driver4, Elizabeth Archambault5. 1. Center of Innovation in Long-term Services/Supports, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, RI; Delirium Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: James.Rudolph@va.gov. 2. Delirium Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA. 3. Delirium Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; School of Nursing, Science and Health Professions, Regis College, Weston, MA. 4. Delirium Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. Delirium Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identifying patients at risk for delirium allows prompt application of prevention, diagnostic, and treatment strategies; but is rarely done. Once delirium develops, patients are more likely to need posthospitalization skilled care. This study developed an a priori electronic prediction rule using independent risk factors identified in a National Center of Clinical Excellence meta-analysis and validated the ability to predict delirium in 2 cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis followed by prospective validation. SETTING: Tertiary VA Hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 27,625 medical records of hospitalized patients and 246 prospectively enrolled patients admitted to the hospital. MEASUREMENTS: The electronic delirium risk prediction rule was created using data obtained from the patient electronic medical record (EMR). The primary outcome, delirium, was identified 2 ways: (1) from the EMR (retrospective cohort) and (2) clinical assessment on enrollment and daily thereafter (prospective participants). We assessed discrimination of the delirium prediction rule with the C-statistic. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and discharge to rehabilitation. RESULTS: Retrospectively, delirium was identified in 8% of medical records (n = 2343); prospectively, delirium during hospitalization was present in 26% of participants (n = 64). In the retrospective cohort, medical record delirium was identified in 2%, 3%, 11%, and 38% of the low, intermediate, high, and very high-risk groups, respectively (C-statistic = 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.82). Prospectively, the electronic prediction rule identified delirium in 15%, 18%, 31%, and 55% of these groups (C-statistic = 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.77). Compared with low-risk patients, those at high- or very high delirium risk had increased length of stay (5.7 ± 5.6 vs 3.7 ± 2.7 days; P = .001) and higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation (8.9% vs 20.8%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Automatic calculation of delirium risk using an EMR algorithm identifies patients at risk for delirium, which creates a critical opportunity for gaining clinical efficiencies and improving delirium identification, including those needing skilled care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Identifying patients at risk for delirium allows prompt application of prevention, diagnostic, and treatment strategies; but is rarely done. Once delirium develops, patients are more likely to need posthospitalization skilled care. This study developed an a priori electronic prediction rule using independent risk factors identified in a National Center of Clinical Excellence meta-analysis and validated the ability to predict delirium in 2 cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis followed by prospective validation. SETTING: Tertiary VA Hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 27,625 medical records of hospitalized patients and 246 prospectively enrolled patients admitted to the hospital. MEASUREMENTS: The electronic delirium risk prediction rule was created using data obtained from the patient electronic medical record (EMR). The primary outcome, delirium, was identified 2 ways: (1) from the EMR (retrospective cohort) and (2) clinical assessment on enrollment and daily thereafter (prospective participants). We assessed discrimination of the delirium prediction rule with the C-statistic. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and discharge to rehabilitation. RESULTS: Retrospectively, delirium was identified in 8% of medical records (n = 2343); prospectively, delirium during hospitalization was present in 26% of participants (n = 64). In the retrospective cohort, medical record delirium was identified in 2%, 3%, 11%, and 38% of the low, intermediate, high, and very high-risk groups, respectively (C-statistic = 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.82). Prospectively, the electronic prediction rule identified delirium in 15%, 18%, 31%, and 55% of these groups (C-statistic = 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.77). Compared with low-risk patients, those at high- or very high delirium risk had increased length of stay (5.7 ± 5.6 vs 3.7 ± 2.7 days; P = .001) and higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation (8.9% vs 20.8%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Automatic calculation of delirium risk using an EMR algorithm identifies patients at risk for delirium, which creates a critical opportunity for gaining clinical efficiencies and improving delirium identification, including those needing skilled care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Anne B Newman; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Jack M Guralnik; Steven R Cummings; Marcel Salive; George A Kuchel; Jennifer Schrack; Martha Clare Morris; David Weir; Andrea Baccarelli; Joanne M Murabito; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Mark A Espeland; James Kirkland; David Melzer; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Heidi Lindroth; Lisa Bratzke; Suzanne Purvis; Roger Brown; Mark Coburn; Marko Mrkobrada; Matthew T V Chan; Daniel H J Davis; Pratik Pandharipande; Cynthia M Carlsson; Robert D Sanders Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elizabeth L Whitlock; Matthias R Braehler; Jennifer A Kaplan; Emily Finlayson; Stephanie E Rogers; Vanja Douglas; Anne L Donovan Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 6.627
Authors: Marco G Ceppi; Marlene S Rauch; Peter S Sándor; Andreas R Gantenbein; Shyam Krishnakumar; Monika Albert; Christoph R Meier Journal: Neurol Int Date: 2021-12-09
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Jin H Han; David Meagher; Eduard Vasilevskis; Joaquim Cerejeira; Wolfgang Hasemann; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Giorgio Annoni; Marco Trabucchi; Giuseppe Bellelli Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.669