↓ Skip to main content

Recognition and labeling of delirium symptoms by intensivists: Does it matter?

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Recognition and labeling of delirium symptoms by intensivists: Does it matter?
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, December 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00134-007-0947-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Z. Cheung, Shabbir M. H. Alibhai, Michael Robinson, George Tomlinson, Dean Chittock, John Drover, Yoanna Skrobik

Abstract

The approach to acute cognitive dysfunction varies among physicians, including intensivists. Physicians may differ in their labeling of cognitive abnormalities in critically ill patients. We aimed to survey: (a) what Canadian intensive care unit (ICU) physicians identify as "delirium"; (b) choices of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management; and (c) consultation patterns among ICU patients with cognitive abnormalities. A mail-in self-administered survey was sent to Canadian intensivists registered with the Canadian Critical Care Society. The survey contained three clinical scenarios which described cognitively abnormal patients with: (a) hepatic encephalopathy; (b) multiple drug overdose; and (c) post-operative aortic aneurysm repair. Symptoms, which included fluctuating level of consciousness, inattention, disorientation, hallucinations, sleep/wake cycle disturbance, and paranoia, all fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for delirium. We asked for diagnoses in short-answer format for each scenario, and offered multiple selections of non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies and consultation options. All intensivists registered with the Canadian Critical Care Society. One-hundred thirty surveys were returned, for a response rate of 58.3%. When an etiological cognitive dysfunction diagnosis was obvious, 83-85% responded with the medical diagnosis to explain the cognitive abnormalities; only 43-55% used the term "delirium". In contrast, where an underlying medical problem was lacking, 74% of respondents diagnosed "delirium" (p=0.002). Non-pharmacological and pharmacological management varied considerably by physician and scenario but independently from whether the term "delirium" was selected. Commonly selected pharmacological agents were antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, followed by narcotics, non-narcotic analgesics, and other sedatives. Whether and when intensivists chose to consult other services varied. Canadian intensivists diagnose delirium based upon the presence or absence of an obvious medical etiology. Wide variation exists in approach to management, as well as patterns of consultation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Other 12 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 65%
Psychology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,318,515
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#3,998
of 4,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,038
of 155,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#21
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 155,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.