Clinicians’ delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey

Author:

Hosie Annmarie12ORCID,Agar Meera3,Caplan Gideon A45,Draper Brian6,Hedger Stephen7,Rowett Debra8,Tuffin Penny910,Cheah Seong Leang3,Phillips Jane L311ORCID,Brown Linda3,Sidhu Manraaj3,Currow David C3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. The University of Notre Dame Australia, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

2. St Vincent’s Health Network Sydney, The Cunningham Centre for Palliative Care, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

3. University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Health, Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Research and Translation, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

4. Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Randwick, NSW, Australia

5. University of New South Wales, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Randwick, NSW Australia

6. University of New South Wales, School of Psychiatry, Randwick, NSW Australia

7. Flinders University, College of Medicine and Public Health, Adelaide, SA, Australia

8. University of South Australia, Clinical and Heath Sciences, Adelaide, SA, Australia

9. Royal Perth Hospital, Palliative Care Department and Pain Service, Perth, WA, Australia

10. Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

11. Queensland University of Technology, School of Nursing, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Abstract

Background: Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium. Aim: To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians’ delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Design: Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians. Setting/participants: Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals’ organisations. Results: Most of the sample ( n = 475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents’ delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%, p < 0.001); changed delirium treatment (73% vs 53%, p = 0.017); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%, p < 0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%, p < 0.001: antipsychotics 79% vs 44%, p < 0.001; benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Clinicians’ use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3