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.

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.

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.

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.