IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advantages of score-based delirium detection compared to a clinical delirium assessment—a retrospective, monocentric cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Markus Jäckel
  • Nico Aicher
  • Xavier Bemtgen
  • Jonathan Rilinger
  • Viviane Zotzmann
  • Paul Marc Biever
  • Alexander Supady
  • Peter Stachon
  • Daniel Duerschmied
  • Tobias Wengenmayer
  • Christoph Bode
  • Dawid Leander Staudacher

Abstract

Purpose: Delirium is an underdiagnosed complication on intensive care units (ICU). We hypothesized that a score-based delirium detection using the Nudesc score identifies more patients compared to a traditional diagnosis of delirium by ICU physicians. Methods: In this retrospective study, all patients treated on a general medical ICU with 30 beds in a university hospital in 2019 were analyzed. Primary outcome was a documented physician diagnosis of delirium, or a delirium score ≥2 using the Nudesc. Results: In 205/943 included patients (21.7%), delirium was diagnosed by ICU physicians compared to 438/943 (46.4%; ratio 2.1) by Nudesc≥2. Both assessments were independent predictors of ICU stay (p

Suggested Citation

  • Markus Jäckel & Nico Aicher & Xavier Bemtgen & Jonathan Rilinger & Viviane Zotzmann & Paul Marc Biever & Alexander Supady & Peter Stachon & Daniel Duerschmied & Tobias Wengenmayer & Christoph Bode & D, 2021. "Advantages of score-based delirium detection compared to a clinical delirium assessment—a retrospective, monocentric cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259841
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259841
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259841&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259841?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0259841. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.