↓ Skip to main content

Inattentive Delirium vs. Disorganized Thinking: A New Axis to Subcategorize PACU Delirium

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inattentive Delirium vs. Disorganized Thinking: A New Axis to Subcategorize PACU Delirium
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2018.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren F. Hight, Jamie Sleigh, Joel D. Winders, Logan J. Voss, Amy L. Gaskell, Amy D. Rodriguez, Paul S. García

Abstract

Background: Assessment of patients for delirium in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) is confounded by the residual effects of the varied anesthetic and analgesic regimens employed during surgery and by the physiological consequences of surgery such as pain. Nevertheless, delirium diagnosed at this early stage has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The last decade has seen the emergence of the confusion assessment method-intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) score as a quick practical method of detecting delirium in clinical situations. Nonetheless, this tool has not been specifically designed for use in this immediate postoperative setting. Methods: Patients enrolled in a larger observational study were administered the CAM-ICU delirium screening tool 15 min after the latter of return of responsiveness to command or arrival in the post-anesthesia care unit. Numerical pain rating scores were also recorded. In addition, we reviewed additional behavioral observations suggestive of disordered thinking, such as hallucinations, a non-reactive eyes-open state, or an inability to state a pain score. Results: Two-hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent CAM-ICU testing in PACU. 33 patients (14%) were diagnosed with delirium according to CAM-ICU criteria; 25 of these were inattentive with low arousal, seven were inattentive with high arousal, and one was inattentive and calm and with disordered thinking. Using our extended criteria an additional eleven patients showed signs of disordered thinking. CAM-ICU delirium was associated with increased length of operation (p = 0.028), but a positive CAM-PACU designation was associated with both increased operation length and age (p = 0.003 and 0.010 respectively). Two of the CAM-ICU positive patients with inattention and high arousal reported high pain scores and were not classified as CAM-PACU positive. Conclusion: Disordered thinking is correlated with older patients and longer operations. The sensitivity of the existing CAM-ICU score in diagnosing delirium or disordered thinking in PACU patients is improved by the inclusion of a few extra criteria, namely: patients having perceptual hallucinations, in an unreactive eyes-open state, or who cannot state a pain score. We present this alternative screening tool for use in the post-anesthetic period, which we have named CAM-PACU.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 March 2019.
All research outputs
#8,700,005
of 25,931,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#643
of 1,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,784
of 345,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,931,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 345,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.