Background: Pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome are conditions that often coexist, algorithms can be used to assist healthcare professionals in decision making. However, a comprehensive review is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, quality, and implementation of algorithms for the management of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in all pediatric intensive care settings. Methods: A literature search was conducted on November 29, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar to identify algorithms implemented in pediatric intensive care and published since 2005. Three reviewers independently screened the records for inclusion, verified and extracted data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the JBI checklists, and algorithm quality was assessed using the PROFILE tool (higher % = higher quality). Meta-analyses were performed to compare algorithms to usual care on various outcomes (length of stay, duration and cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, length of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of withdrawal). Results: From 6,779 records, 32 studies, including 28 algorithms, were included. The majority of algorithms (68%) focused on sedation in combination with other conditions. Risk of bias was low in 28 studies. The average overall quality score of the algorithm was 54%, with 11 (39%) scoring as high quality. Four algorithms used clinical practice guidelines during development. The use of algorithms was found to be effective in reducing length of stay (intensive care and hospital), length of mechanical ventilation, duration of analgesic and sedative medications, cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, and incidence of withdrawal. Implementation strategies included education and distribution of materials (95%). Supportive determinants of algorithm implementation included leadership support and buy-in, staff training, and integration into electronic health records. The fidelity to algorithm varied from 8.2% to 100%. Conclusions: The review suggests that algorithm-based management of pain, sedation and withdrawal is more effective than usual care in pediatric intensive care settings. There is a need for more rigorous use of evidence in the development of algorithms and the provision of details on the implementation process. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021276053, PROSPERO [CRD42021276053].

Introduction: Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software. Results: Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P < 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

INTRODUCTION: In orthopaedic surgery, hip fracture patients represent one of the largest cohorts. Hip fracture is a serious injury commonly occurring in frail and elderly patients. Fast-track admission pathways aim to streamline patients through accident and emergency departments, resulting in shorter wait times and less negative patient outcomes. Aim To examine the impact of a fast-track pathway on length of stay for adults admitted to an acute hospital with a hip fracture. METHODS: CINAHL Plus with Full text (via EBSCO host), MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase database searches were carried out in January 2021, to fnd all relevant literature for this review, as well as through searching additional sources. Eligible studies were quantitative primary research, focusing on the use of fast-track admission pathway care versus usual care, for adults with a hip fracture. The assessment of study suitability, data extraction, and critical appraisal was carried out by two independent authors. A narrative analysis of the data was conducted, and data were meta-analysed using RevMan where possible. Quality appraisal of the included studies was undertaken using the EBL checklist. RESULTS: Seven studies reporting data on 5723 patients were included. Length of stay, time to surgery, and mortality did not difer signifcantly between the fast-track care, and usual care. One study reported on delirium and found statistically signifcantly fewer encounters of delirium in fast-track care versus usual care. Four of the seven studies satisfed rigorous quality appraisal (>75%) using the EBL. CONCLUSION: The fast-track pathway avoided unnecessary delays in emergency departments due to faster X-rays, direct admission to orthopaedic wards, and reduced delirium rates. However, results were unable to show the impact of fast-track on length of stay, time to surgery, and mortality

Aim To compare the safety and effects of unrestricted visiting policies (UVPs) and restricted visiting policies (RVPs) in intensive care units (ICUs) with respect to outcomes related to delirium, infection, and mortality. Methods MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBMdisc, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database records generated from their inception to 22 January 2022 were searched. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. The main outcomes investigated were delirium, ICU-acquired infection, ICU mortality, and length of ICU stay. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted to obtain pooled estimates, due to heterogeneity. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The results were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results Eleven studies including a total of 3741 patients that compared UVPs and RVPs in ICUs were included in the analyses. Random effects modeling indicated that UVPs were associated with a reduced incidence of delirium (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.25-0.63, I-2 = 71%, p = 0.0005). Fixed-effects modeling indicated that UVPs did not increase the incidences of ICU-acquired infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.71-1.30, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.49), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52-1.80, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.55), and catheter-related blood stream infection (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.72-1.84, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.66), or ICU mortality (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28, I-2 = 49%, p = 0.12). Forest plotting indicated that UVPs could reduce the lengths of ICU stays (SMD = - 0.97, 95% CI - 1.61 to 0.32, p = 0.003). Conclusion The current meta-analysis indicates that adopting a UVP may significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in ICU patients, without increasing the risks of ICU-acquired infection or mortality. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these indications.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether delirium prevention interventions reduce the risk of falls among older hospitalised patients. METHODS: A systematic search of health-care databases was undertaken. Given the frequency of small sample sized trials, a trial sequential meta-analysis was conducted to present estimate summary effects to date. A Bayesian approach was used to estimate the posterior probability of the delirium prevention interventions reducing falls risk by various clinically relevant levels. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials were included in our final meta-analysis. There was a 43% reduction in the risk of falls among participants in the delirium prevention intervention arm, compared to the control; however, confidence intervals were wide (RE RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.32; 1.00, p = 0.05). This result was found to be statistically significant, according to traditional significance levels (z > 1.96) and the more conservative trial sequential analysis monitoring boundaries. The posterior probabilities of the delirium prevention intervention reducing the risk of falls by 10%, 20% and 30% were 0.86, 0.63 and 0.29 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis suggest that delirium prevention trials may reduce the risk of in-hospital falls among older patients by 43%. However, despite significant risk reduction found upon meta-analysis, the variation among study populations and intervention components raised questions around its application in clinical practice. Further research is required to investigate what the necessary components of a multifactorial intervention are to reduce both delirium and fall incidence among older adult in-patients.

Delirium is one of the common manifestations of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. We aimed to evaluate the effect of family intervention on reducing the delirium incidence in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU). We searched electronic databases for randomized clinical trials, cohort, and before-and-after studies up to September 2021 using the MeSH terms ("family" OR "family caregiver") AND ("delirium"). A total of 6 studies including 4199 patients were analyzed. Compared to the control group, the risk of delirium was 24% lower in the family intervention group (OR 0·76 [0·67-0·86], P = 0.20, I2 = 31%). Pooled data from two trials showed that family intervention was associated with fewer delirium days (SMD: -1.13, 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.34; P = 0.08; I2 = 67%;). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation duration, and mortality (ICU stay days: MD: -0.62 days; 95% CI: -1.49 to 0.24; P = 0.14; I2 = 72%; mechanical ventilation days: MD: -0.48 days; 95% CI: -2.10 to 1.13; P = 0.56; I2 = 0%; mortality: OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.09; P = 0.08; I2 = 67%). Current evidence supports the use of family intervention in reducing the delirium risk and delirium days in hospitalized ICU patients. However, its effects on reducing ICU stay length, ventilation duration, and mortality require further study. Future research should consider identifying the specific family intervention strategies and their duration.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the feasibility and effect of patient and familycentred care interventions provided in the intensive care unit, single or multicomponent, versus usual care, for reducing delirium, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in patients and family-members. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines and GRADE approach. A systematic literature search of relevant databases, screening and inclusion of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias according to Cochrane methodology. The study is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160768). SETTING: Adult intensive care units. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials enrolling a total of 1170 patients and 1226 family-members were included. We found moderate to low certainty evidence indicating no effect of patient and family centred care on delirium, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, in-hospital mortality, intensive care length of stay or family-members' anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. No studies looked at the effect of patient and family centred care on pain or cognitive function in patients. Evaluation of feasibility outcomes was scarce. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to substantial risk of bias in individual studies and imprecision due to few events and small sample size. CONCLUSION: It remains uncertain whether patient and family centred care compared to usual care may reduce delirium in patients and psychological sequelae of intensive care admission in patients and families due to limited evidence of moderate to low certainty. Lack of systematic process evaluation of intervention feasibility as recommended by the Medical Research Council to identify barriers and facilitators of patient and family centred care in the adult intensive care unit context, further limits the conclusions that can be drawn.

BACKGROUND: Delirium, defined as an acute disorder of attention and cognition with high morbidity and mortality, can be prevented by multicomponent nonpharmacological interventions. The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is the original evidence-based approach targeted to delirium risk factors, which has been widely disseminated. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current state of the evidence regarding HELP and to highlight its effectiveness and cost savings. METHODS: Systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1999 to 2017, using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keyword terms. RESULTS: Of the 44 final articles included, 14 were included in the meta-analysis for effectiveness and 30 were included for examining cost savings, adherence and adaptations, role of volunteers, successes and barriers, and issues in sustainability. The results for delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, and institutionalization were pooled for meta-analyses. Overall, 14 studies demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.59). The rate of falls was reduced by 42% among intervention patients in three comparative studies (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95). In nine studies on cost savings, the program saved $1600-$3800 (2018 U.S. dollars) per patient in hospital costs and over $16,000 (2018 U.S. dollars) per person-year in long-term care costs in the year following delirium. The systematic review revealed that programs were generally successful in adhering to or appropriately adapting HELP (n=13 studies) and in finding the volunteer role to be valuable (n=6 studies). Successes and barriers to implementation were examined in 6 studies, including ensuring effective clinician leadership, finding senior administrative champions, and shifting organizational culture. Sustainability factors were examined in 10 studies, including adapting to local circumstances, documenting positive impact and outcomes, and securing long-term funding. CONCLUSION: The Hospital Elder Life Program is effective in reducing incidence of delirium and rate of falls, with a trend toward decreasing length of stay and preventing institutionalization. With ongoing efforts in continuous program improvement, implementation, adaptations, and sustainability, HELP has emerged as a reference standard model for improving the quality and effectiveness of hospital care for older persons worldwide.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to appraise current research which examines the impact of early rehabilitation practices on functional outcomes and quality of life in adult intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. REVIEW METHOD USED: A systematic literature search was undertaken; retrieved data was evaluated against a recognised evaluation tool; research findings were analysed and categorised into themes; and a synthesis of conclusions from each theme was presented as an integrated summation of the topic. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases of PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched using key search terms 'ICU acquired weakness', 'early rehabilitation' 'early mobility' and 'functional outcomes' combined with 'intensive care' and 'critical illness'. Additional literature was sourced from reference lists of relevant original publications. RESULTS: Five major themes related to the review objectives emerged from the analysis. These themes included: critically ill patients do not always receive physical therapy as a standard of care; ICU culture and resources determine early rehabilitation success; successful respiratory and physical rehabilitation interventions are tailored according to individual patient impairment; early exercise in the ICU prevents the neuromuscular complications of critical illness and improves functional status; early exercise in the ICU is effective, safe and feasible. CONCLUSIONS: A limited body of research supports early rehabilitation interventions to optimise the short term outcomes and long term quality of life for ICU survivors. Critical care nurses are in an excellent position to drive change within their departments ensuring that early rehabilitation practices are adopted and implemented

Delirium is an acute deterioration in attention, conscious state, perception, and cognition of a person. While nurses possess the theoretical understanding of the condition, they lack insight into its early recognition and management. This systematic review aims to understand what factors influence nurses as they care for patients with delirium, and to identify best practices to improve overall clinical care. The Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES), as a strategy process to identify gaps in research, formulate new models or strategies for care, underpinned the review. In addition to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a methodological assessment, data were analysed using QES, as informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Review process. Ten studies were identified and synthesised to generate four key themes. The themes included (1) nurse's knowledge deficit; (2) increased workload and stress; (3) safety concerns among nurse when caring for patients with delirium; and (4) strategies used when caring for patients with delirium. Overall, the review has highlighted the need for increased delirium education and coping strategies among nurses to effectively care for patients with delirium. This may be augmented through regular education sessions to provide nurses with the confidence and competence to care for the acutely confused person.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to examine the effectiveness, implementation, and costs of multifaceted care approaches, including care bundles, for the prevention and mitigation of delirium in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Searches were limited to studies published in English from January 1, 1988, to March 31, 2014. Randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of multifaceted care approaches with the reduction of delirium in ICU patients as an outcome and evaluations of the implementation or cost-effectiveness of these interventions were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study methods including design, cohort size, interventions, and outcomes were abstracted, reviewed, and summarized. Given the variability in study design, populations, and interventions, a qualitative review of findings was conducted. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 14 studies met our inclusion criteria: 6 examined outcomes, 5 examined implementation, 2 examined outcomes and implementation, and 1 examined cost-effectiveness. The majority of studies indicated that multifaceted care approaches were associated with improved patient outcomes including reduced incidence and duration of delirium. Additionally, improvements in functional status and reductions in coma and ventilator days, hospital length of stay, and/or mortality rates were observed. Implementation strategies included structured quality improvement approaches with ongoing audit and feedback, multidisciplinary care teams, intensive training, electronic reporting systems, and local support teams. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated an average reduction of $1000 in hospital costs for patients treated with a multifaceted care approach. CONCLUSION: Although multifaceted care approaches may reduce delirium and improve patient outcomes, greater improvements may be achieved by deploying a comprehensive bundle of care practices including awakening and breathing trials, delirium monitoring and treatment, and early mobility. Further research to address this knowledge gap is essential to providing best care for ICU patients.

Background Alcohol abuse and dependence represents a most serious health problem worldwide with major social, interpersonal and legal interpolations. Besides benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants are often used for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Anticonvulsants drugs are indicated for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, alone or in combination with benzodiazepine treatments. In spite of the wide use, the exact role of the anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal has not yet bee adequately assessed. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsants in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. Search strategy We searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group' Register of Trials (December 2009), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (1966 to December 2009), EconLIT (1969 to December 2009). Parallel searches on web sites of health technology assessment and related agencies, and their databases. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness, safety and overall risk-benefit of anticonvulsants in comparison with a placebo or other pharmacological treatment. All patients were included regardless of age, gender, nationality, and outpatient or inpatient therapy. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened and extracted data from studies. Main results Fifty-six studies, with a total of 4076 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Comparing anticonvulsants with placebo, no statistically significant differences for the six outcomes considered. Comparing anticonvulsant versus other drug, 19 outcomes considered, results favour anticonvulsants only in the comparison carbamazepine versus benzodiazepine (oxazepam and lorazepam) for alcohol withdrawal symptoms (CIWA-Ar score): 3 studies, 262 participants, MD-1.04 (-1.89 to -0.20), none of the other comparisons reached statistical significance. Comparing different anticonvulsants no statistically significant differences in the two outcomes considered. Comparing anticonvulsants plus other drugs versus other drugs (3 outcomes considered), results fromone study, 72 participants, favour paraldehyde plus chloral hydrate versus chlordiazepoxide, for the severe-life threatening side effects, RR 0.12 (0.03 to 0.44). Authors' conclusions Results of this review do not provide sufficient evidence in favour of anticonvulsants for the treatment of AWS. There are some suggestions that carbamazepine may actually be more effective in treating some aspects of alcohol withdrawal when compared to benzodiazepines, the current first-line regimen for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Anticonvulsants seem to have limited side effects, although adverse effects are not rigorously reported in the analysed trials.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a multifactorial syndrome closely associated with negative hospitalisation outcomes. Given the global growth of the ageing population, delirium becomes increasingly prevalent among older persons. Nurses play a pivotal role in delirium management and receive direct impacts of delirious presentations. Yet, there is a dearth of literature reviewing nurses' experiences. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the best available evidence exploring nurses' experiences in managing delirium of older persons in acute care wards. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies and meta-aggregation. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished literature between January 2010 and December 2020 were identified from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, PsycINFO and ProQuest. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search strategy was applied in October 2020, with an update in January 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and selected the eligible studies after reading the full texts. This review included studies focusing on licensed nurses providing care to patients aged 65 and above, having any type of delirium during their hospitalisation stays in acute care settings. Studies included are qualitative papers with research designs such as phenomenology, ethnography, qualitative descriptive and grounded theory. The eligible studies were appraised independently using The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data of included studies were extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. Findings were synthesised by the meta-aggregative approach. RESULTS: Thirty-one papers that considered nurses' (n = 464) experiences in managing older persons' delirium were included. A total of 375 findings were extracted, aggregated into 23 categories, and developed 5 synthesised findings: (i) delirium detection could be hindered when nurses possess a narrowed view of delirium, (ii) nurses navigate through complexity when providing multi-faceted care, (iii) nurses carry personal emotions, assumptions, and identities, (iv) various stakeholders have double-edged influences, and (v) nurses display preferences in their learning needs. CONCLUSION: This review informed about nurses' perceptions of delirium, delirious older persons, and their nursing management which were specific to older persons and acute care settings. Nurses should practise self-awareness regarding their own knowledge and attitudes while performing delirium management in older adults. Meanwhile, healthcare professionals and policymakers should make a concerted effort in cultivating a better working environment. Future research of delirium care that specifically investigates with a geriatric perspective would better contribute to the improvement of evidence-based nursing practices for older persons.