ABSTRACT
Purpose Our aim was to collect information on delirium assessment processes and pathways in non-intensive care settings in the United Kingdom (UK).
Methods We sent a Freedom of Information request to 169 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, trusts and health boards (units) in July 2020 to obtain data on usage of delirium assessment tools in clinical practice and delirium pathways or guidelines.
Results We received responses from 154/169 units (91% response rate). Of these, 146/154 (95%) units reported use of formal delirium assessment processes and 131/154 (85%) units had guidelines or pathways in place. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) was the most widely used tool, with 117/146 (80%) units reporting use. The Confusion Assessment Method was used in 65/146 (45%) units, and the Single Question to identify Delirium (SQiD) in 52/146 (36%) units.
Conclusions Our findings show that the 4AT is the most commonly used tool in the UK, with 80% of units reporting use. This study adds to our knowledge of real-world uptake of delirium detection methods at scale. Future studies should evaluate real-world implementation of delirium assessment tools further via (i) tool completion rates and (ii) rates of positive scores against the expected prevalence delirium in the clinical population concerned.
Aim To seek information on delirium assessment processes and pathways in non-intensive clinical care settings in the United Kingdom (UK), and to assess usage of specific delirium assessment tools: the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT), Confusion Assessment Method and Single Question to identify Delirium (SQiD).
Findings In total, 95% of National Health Service (NHS) units (hospitals, trusts and health boards) reported use of formal delirium assessment processes and 85% of units had guidelines or pathways in place. The 4AT was the most widely used tool, with 80% of units reporting use; the Confusion Assessment Method was reportedly used in 45% of units and the SQiD in 36% of units.
Message This study shows real-world, large-scale uptake of delirium detection methods and delirium guidelines in UK hospitals, which contributes to ongoing efforts to improve delirium care.
Competing Interest Statement
AMJM led the design of the 4AT (with others, see www.the4at.com); the 4AT is free to download and use. ZT and JL declare no competing interests.
Clinical Trial
Not applicable.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust-University of Edinburgh Institutional Strategic Support Fund. Grant no. IS3-T06/03. The financial sponsor played no role in the design, execution, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
As the Freedom of Information Act was used to request data and no person identifiable data were sought, there were no aspects to this study requiring ethics committee approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Information gained through FOI Act is publicly available.
