Comparison of the '4-item assessment test' and 'nursing delirium screening scale' delirium screening tools on non-intensive care unit wards: A prospective mixed-method approach

Abstract

Background: In elderly patients following surgery, postoperative delirium (POD) is the most frequent complication and is associated with negative outcomes. The 2017 European Society of Anaesthesiology guideline on POD aims to improve patient care by implementing structured delirium prevention, diagnosis and treatment. However, these recommendations, especially systematic delirium screening, are still incompletely adopted in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of validated delirium screening tools and to identify barriers to their implementation on nonintensive care unit wards.

Methods: Screening rates, as well as practicability, acceptance and the interprofessional handling of positive results, were assessed for each group. Screening rates were calculated as a percentage of the total potential testing episodes completed (up to 15 per patient). Patients were considered eligible when aged 65 years and above. Barriers and motivating factors were assessed in a mixed method approach by utilising questionnaires and focus group discussions.

Intervention: In a 3-month phase, a guideline-compliant screening protocol involving screening for POD three times daily for 5 days following surgery was introduced in five wards: both the 4-item assessment test (4AT) and the nursing delirium screening scale (NuDESC) were used. Before commencing the study and again after 6 weeks, medical staff of the respective wards underwent a 45 min training session.

Results: Of a total of 3183 potential testing episodes, 999 (31.4%) were completed, with more NuDESC observational tests (43%) than 4AT bedside tests completed (20%). The 4AT was considered more difficult to integrate into daily working routines, it took longer to administer, and nurses felt uncomfortable conducting the screening (53 vs. 13%). Screening results indicating delirium were often not discussed within the team (47%), and nurses felt that often such results were not taken seriously by physicians (54%).

Conclusion: The observational NuDESC showed a higher completion rate than the bedside 4AT, although overall testing rates were low. The necessary time needed to conduct the screening, the negative reactions by patients, insufficient team communication and a lack of initiation of any therapy were identified as major barriers in the implementation of the guideline-compliant screening protocol. For all staff, further education and awareness of the importance of POD diagnosis and treatment might improve the screening rates. The NuDesc received better results concerning acceptance, practicability and introduction into daily work routine, leading to higher screening rates compared with the 4AT. The latter instrument, which was intended to be used rather selectively or when POD is suspected, might therefore not be suitable for guideline-compliant regular and repeated screening for POD.