Sunhee Lee1, Sun Mi Lee2. 1. College of Nursing, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 2. College of Nursing, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. leesunmi@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to investigate relationship between delirium, risk factors on delirium, and patient prognosis based on Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model. METHODS: This study utilized a path analysis design. We extracted data from the electronic medical records containing delirium screening data. Each five hundred data in a delirium and a non-delirium group were randomly selected from electronic medical records of medical and surgical intensive care patients. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and AMOS 24. RESULTS: In the final model, admission via emergency department (B=.06, p=.019), age over 65 years (B=.11, p=.001), unconsciousness (B=.18, p=.001), dependent activities (B=.12, p=.001), abnormal vital signs (B=.12, p=.001), pressure ulcer risk (B=.12, p=.001), enteral nutrition (B=.12, p=.001), and use of restraint (B=.30, p=.001) directly affecting delirium accounted for 56.0% of delirium cases. Delirium had a direct effect on hospital mortality (B=.06, p=.038), hospital length of stay (B=5.06, p=.010), and discharge to another facility (not home) (B=.12, p=.001), also risk factors on delirium indirectly affected patient prognosis through delirium. CONCLUSION: The use of interventions to reduce delirium may improve patient prognosis. To improve the dependency activities and risk of pressure ulcers that directly affect delirium, early ambulation is encouraged, and treatment and nursing interventions to remove the ventilator and drainage tube quickly must be provided to minimize the application of restraint. Further, delirium can be prevented and patient prognosis improved through continuous intervention to stimulate cognitive awareness and monitoring of the onset of delirium. This study also discussed the effects of delirium intervention on the prognosis of patients with delirium and future research in this area.
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to investigate relationship between delirium, risk factors on delirium, and patient prognosis based on Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model. METHODS: This study utilized a path analysis design. We extracted data from the electronic medical records containing delirium screening data. Each five hundred data in a delirium and a non-delirium group were randomly selected from electronic medical records of medical and surgical intensive care patients. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and AMOS 24. RESULTS: In the final model, admission via emergency department (B=.06, p=.019), age over 65 years (B=.11, p=.001), unconsciousness (B=.18, p=.001), dependent activities (B=.12, p=.001), abnormal vital signs (B=.12, p=.001), pressure ulcer risk (B=.12, p=.001), enteral nutrition (B=.12, p=.001), and use of restraint (B=.30, p=.001) directly affecting delirium accounted for 56.0% of delirium cases. Delirium had a direct effect on hospital mortality (B=.06, p=.038), hospital length of stay (B=5.06, p=.010), and discharge to another facility (not home) (B=.12, p=.001), also risk factors on delirium indirectly affected patient prognosis through delirium. CONCLUSION: The use of interventions to reduce delirium may improve patient prognosis. To improve the dependency activities and risk of pressure ulcers that directly affect delirium, early ambulation is encouraged, and treatment and nursing interventions to remove the ventilator and drainage tube quickly must be provided to minimize the application of restraint. Further, delirium can be prevented and patient prognosis improved through continuous intervention to stimulate cognitive awareness and monitoring of the onset of delirium. This study also discussed the effects of delirium intervention on the prognosis of patients with delirium and future research in this area.
Authors: Maarten M van Eijk; Mark van den Boogaard; Rob J van Marum; Paul Benner; Piet Eikelenboom; Marina L Honing; Ben van der Hoven; Janneke Horn; Gerbrand J Izaks; Annette Kalf; Attila Karakus; Ine A Klijn; Michael A Kuiper; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Tjarda de Man; Roos C van der Mast; Robert-Jan Osse; Sophia E de Rooij; Peter E Spronk; Peter H van der Voort; Willem A van Gool; Arjen J Slooter Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Ayumi Shintani; Brenda Truman; Theodore Speroff; Sharon M Gordon; Frank E Harrell; Sharon K Inouye; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bart Van Rompaey; Marieke J Schuurmans; Lillie M Shortridge-Baggett; Steven Truijen; Leo Bossaert Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 3.072
Authors: Juliana Barr; Gilles L Fraser; Kathleen Puntillo; E Wesley Ely; Céline Gélinas; Joseph F Dasta; Judy E Davidson; John W Devlin; John P Kress; Aaron M Joffe; Douglas B Coursin; Daniel L Herr; Avery Tung; Bryce R H Robinson; Dorrie K Fontaine; Michael A Ramsay; Richard R Riker; Curtis N Sessler; Brenda Pun; Yoanna Skrobik; Roman Jaeschke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.598