IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i13-14p2537-2542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Undiagnosed delirium is frequent and difficult to predict: Results from a prevalence survey of a tertiary hospital

Author

Listed:
  • Peter W. Lange
  • Marissa Lamanna
  • Rosie Watson
  • Andrea B. Maier

Abstract

Aims and objectives To study the prevalence and determinants of undiagnosed delirium in a tertiary hospital. Background Delirium is a common inpatient condition. It is frequently undiagnosed in a variety of settings, but determinants of undiagnosed delirium are largely unknown, and the frequency of undiagnosed delirium across all inpatient units is uncertain. The utility of hospital‐wide screening then is also uncertain. Methods Hospital‐wide prevalence study conducted over 4 months, using a chart‐based method. Gender, age, admitting unit, history of dementia and comorbidity were used in univariate and multivariate analyses to search for differences in patients with no delirium, with undiagnosed delirium and with diagnosed delirium. Sensitivity, specificity and number needed to screen were calculated from proportions in each group. Study was conducted in concordance with STROBE guidelines. Results Delirium was prevalent in 12.5% of all patients and undiagnosed in 24.1% of patients. Only age ≥65 years and a history of dementia predicted delirium, and undiagnosed delirium in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Age ≥65 years accounts for 92.3% sensitivity and 50.8% specificity for undiagnosed delirium in this group. History of dementia had a 23.0% sensitivity and 97.0% specificity. Twenty‐eight patients would need to be screened to detect a case of undiagnosed delirium. Discussion There was a high rate of delirium and undiagnosed delirium in this cohort. Known risk factors for delirium also independently predict undiagnosed delirium; other factors were not found. Conclusion Undiagnosed delirium is common and difficult to predict from patient baseline characteristics other than age. Relevance to clinical practice Assessment of all inpatients for delirium is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter W. Lange & Marissa Lamanna & Rosie Watson & Andrea B. Maier, 2019. "Undiagnosed delirium is frequent and difficult to predict: Results from a prevalence survey of a tertiary hospital," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2537-2542, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:13-14:p:2537-2542
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14833
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14833?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rami K. Aldwikat & Elizabeth Manias & Alex. Holmes & Emily Tomlinson & Patricia Nicholson, 2022. "Validation of Two Screening Tools for Detecting Delirium in Older Patients in the Post-Anaesthetic Care Unit: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Eunhye Jeong & Jinkyung Park & Juneyoung Lee, 2020. "Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Jinkyung Park & Eunhye Jeong & Juneyoung Lee, 2021. "The Delirium Observation Screening Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 30(4), pages 464-473, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:13-14:p:2537-2542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.