CHESTCHEST NewsAccurately representing delirium

Accurately representing the complications and impact of delirium

In a formal letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) endorsed the need to make a key change to the designation of delirium that recognizes it as a major complication or comorbidity. CHEST is grateful to the American Delirium Society for leading this charge.

The proposed change would more accurately represent the clinical importance of delirium and the tremendous costs associated with it. The suggested change will make the complexity designation consistent with toxic (G92) and metabolic (G93.41) encephalopathy (TME) which is implied in cases of delirium as an underlying factor.

CHEST, which represents a large portion of the community of critical care clinicians, recognizes that this change is essential to our ability to improve the clinical care and outcomes of patients who are cognitively vulnerable.

The full letter can be found below.

Dear Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services,

We write to request that causally specified delirium be designated as major complication or comorbidity (MCC), which would make its complexity designation consistent with toxic (G92) and metabolic (G93.41) encephalopathy (TME).

This change is essential to recognizing the clinical importance of delirium and, crucially, the tremendous costs associated with it.1,2 Placing delirium and encephalopathy on par with TME in terms of reimbursement is intended to facilitate systematic efforts to detect delirium as recommended across specialties and settings,3-6 thereby enhancing awareness of delirium and its dire impact on patients, their families, care delivery, and healthcare systems.7 The ultimate goal of this change is to improve the clinical care and outcomes of cognitively vulnerable patients.

Executive summary

We request that all causally specified delirium diagnoses be designated as MCC, consistent with TME. This is justified because a delirium diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR8 and ICD-109 requires both a defined clinical syndrome plus attribution to a direct physiological cause. In other words, a diagnosis of causally specified delirium implies an underlying TME. Our requests are tabulated below (Table 1), with requested changes are in red.

Table 1: Current rule compared with Requested Changes

Background

Endorsed by 10 medical societies (Table 2), a 2020 position statement on preferred nomenclature of delirium and acute encephalopathy, clarified definitions of “acute encephalopathy” and “delirium,” as well the relationship between them.1 The statement provides the following definitions:

Acute encephalopathy: “a rapidly developing (in less than 4 weeks) pathobiological brain process which is expressed clinically as either subsyndromal delirium, delirium or coma.” The diagnostic codes for acute encephalopathy include toxic, metabolic, other, and unspecified encephalopathy.

Subsyndromal delirium: “acute cognitive changes that are compatible with delirium, but do not fulfil all DSM-5 delirium criteria”

Delirium: “a clinical state defined according to the criteria of the DSM-5” (n.b., the current edition is DSM-5-TR8)

Coma: “a state of severely depressed responsiveness defined using diagnostic systems such as the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) or the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score”

Table 2: Professional societies endorsing preferred nomenclature

The clinical syndromes of subsyndromal delirium, delirium, and coma alert the clinician to an underlying acute encephalopathy, as they are the cognitive evidence of a pathobiological brain process disrupting global consciousness. Conversely, acute encephalopathy would not be suspected, let alone diagnosed, in the absence of such clinical syndromes. That is, the presence of a delirium-spectrum syndrome entails the presence of an underlying acute encephalopathy,10 as all editions of the DSM have included a diagnostic criterion for delirium, variably worded, requiring that the cognitive disturbances be attributable to the “direct physiological consequence of another medical condition, substance intoxication or withdrawal, or exposure to a toxin, or is due to multiple etiologies.”

Delirium in relation to acute encephalopathy

Reliability is necessary for high-quality care; however, the diagnosis of acute encephalopathy risks being unreliable on its own because it lacks operationalized diagnostic criteria. Further, to our knowledge, no clinical severity thresholds have ever been validated to define acute encephalopathy caseness. Several EEG patterns may support a diagnosis of acute encephalopathy,11,12 but without reliable criteria this diagnosis will be diagnosed based on nonspecific changes in mental status. At the same time, these same EEG findings for acute encephalopathy are correlated with delirium severity,13 which is important because delirium is a well validated clinical construct with reliable operationalized criteria.14 The severity of the delirium-spectrum illness from subsyndromal delirium to delirium to coma is the bedside clinical analog of an EEG that indexes the severity of the underlying acute encephalopathy. Clinical complexity increases and outcomes worsen incrementally with the severity of mental status change: subsyndromal delirium with moderate impact,15,16 delirium with major impact,7,17,18 and coma with severe impact.19

A robust literature details the impact of delirium on care complexity and costs,20,21 readmissions,22 rates of functional decline,23,24 institutionalization,25 cognitive decline,26-28 dementia,29 and mortality,30,31 yet curiously there is no parallel in the “toxic/metabolic encephalopathy” literature (Table 3). Delirium continues to attract increasing32 and increasingly serious international attention33,34 for its tremendous public health impact. Further, the relationship between delirium and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias is prioritized in research.35

Table 3: Impact of delirium on healthcare and outcomes

The models of delirium and acute encephalopathy each have a rich tradition,2 yet a variety of historical, institutional, and even clinician-level factors have conspired against their integration.10 This is despite the fact that they represent interdependent aspects of a shared set of acute neurocognitive syndromes. Among the most pressing reasons for their division, though, is economic.55 Currently, at each level of specification, each acute encephalopathy code (G-series) is designated as a higher complexity of illness than the corresponding delirium (F-series) code even though causally specified delirium codes provide even greater specificity (Table 4).

Table 4: MS-DRG complexity of delirium and acute encephalopathy vs neurocognitive and causal specification

* ICD-10-CM requires that one “Code first the underlying physiological condition” for F05, whereas the relevant substance is denoted by the ones digit in the diagnostic code for intoxication denoted x in the table and withdrawal deliria. The tenths digit denoted by y in the table refers to the substance use pattern. ICD-10-CM requires that one “Code first, if applicable, drug induced (T36-T50) or use (T51-T65) to identify toxic agent” for G92 but does not have similar coding requirements for G93.41.56

The coding landscape in the U.S. bears this out: in 2011 encephalopathy diagnoses outnumbered delirium nearly 4:1 but in 2018 the ratio was more than 13:1,57 which one suspects is due in large part due to the higher reimbursement.55 [Note, in a supplementary document, we provide an updated analysis based on the National Inpatient Sample for 2019—the last full year before the COVID pandemic—that considers the impact of our proposal.] The effects of the current system, by prioritizing reimbursement of G-series codes over F-series codes, may inadvertently reward institutions that are savvier with such billing incentives, either institutions whose practitioners have been taught to code the corresponding G-series code preferentially or those with separate coding departments. The issue of upcoding delirium to TME was among the key allegations in a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Integra Med Analytics LLC against Providence Health and Services.58 Although the case was ultimately dismissed,59 it clearly highlights this disparity. In the initial filing, the Integra complaint noted that “[e]ncephalopathy is a term for brain disease or damage to the brain where the brain is regarded as ‘altered in its structure or function.’ The telltale symptom is an altered mental state, but altered mental state alone is insufficient for diagnosing encephalopathy” (as quoted in the minutes from the case60). However, one considers it telling that no clinical definition for encephalopathy appears to be offered by the plaintiff in this case.

On the origins of the disparity

Why, when the MS-DRG was being developed, might acute encephalopathy—and, in particular, TME—have performed like an MCC whereas delirium performed like a CC?55 Whereas these diagnoses had been on par in terms of reimbursement prior to the MS-DRG system, they were clearly not being used interchangeably in hospitals. How might coding practices at the time have introduced an artifact of severity?

The first observation applies to both delirium and TME diagnoses. That is, only a fraction of patients with TME/delirium ever receive either diagnosis. A review of coding in 2018 revealed that the combined prevalence of both was roughly 3%,57 yet prospective studies find substantially higher values. For instance, it is rare to find studies that report a lower than 10% prevalence of delirium after major surgery, and more than half of patients in critical care develop delirium.61 Delirium rates across acute medical settings vary by population and, typically, age, pre-existing cognitive impairment, and overall morbidity.62 Therefore, in view of this likely type II error in national coding, the question becomes, “What clinical factors would lead to an artifact of differential complexity?”

Consider TME. First, neurologists have historically favored the term TME whereas most other specialties have favored delirium2 (notably, coding in internal medicine has increasingly favored TME for reasons that are addressed in this proposal1). Returning to the mid-2000’s when the MS-DRG system was developed, we should consider the role of neurology in clinical care. For a neurologist to be involved in a patient’s care either as the primary or consulting service, the mental status change is typically to such a degree that it warrants independent clinical attention for neurological evaluation, often being accompanied by focal neurological findings. Diagnostic consideration would naturally include encephalitis, seizure disorders, space-occupying lesions, cerebrovascular accidents, and the like. Such an evaluation often involves head imaging, EEG evaluation, or even lumbar puncture. As such, TME diagnoses at the time were all but certainly enriched with more severe clinical scenarios.

Next, consider delirium. The vast majority of delirium is never diagnosed, which means that it would be more informative to ask, “When is delirium diagnosed?” rather than “When is it undiagnosed?”63-66 In general, a diagnosis of delirium tends to be made when there is hyperactivity and, in particular, behavioral disturbances. The far more common hypoactive presentations go either undiagnosed or preferentially diagnosed as TME . Additionally, the tradition of the neurologists Victor and Adams was to reserve the diagnosis of delirium for hyperactive states and encephalopathy for hypoactive ones.2 However, of the motoric subtypes of delirium, hypoactive delirium is consistently associated with worse clinical outcomes, including greater risk of mortality.67-71 That is, the data used to create the MS-DRG likely would have included a small group of largely hyperactive delirium as the complication or comorbidity in question, leaving the majority of patients with the more severe hypoactive delirium in the non-delirium reference group, thereby creating a false impression that delirium is of lower complexity.

Delirium and the nine guiding principles for reconsideration of its MS-DRG complexity designation

Delirium is a textbook example that maps onto the nine guiding principles to evaluate when considering a potential change to CMS coding and reimbursement.72 However, an epistemic principle, even more foundational than the nine, is added as a preceding item as number zero below because the ability to detect a condition reliably is necessary for consistent detection and clinical intervention.

0. Delirium can be diagnosed reliably whereas TME cannot be diagnosed reliably without a defined threshold.

  • An independent TME diagnosis currently lacks demonstrated reliability whereas delirium has reliable, operationalized diagnostic criteria.8
  • Delirium instruments are available to detect delirium reliably across settings. In particular, the suite of Confusion Assessment Method delirium assessment instruments has been validated extensively both categorically and as severity instruments,73-78 leading the CAM to be the most widely used set of instruments to detect delirium worldwide. Further, the Ultra-Brief CAM79 can equip a large range of healthcare clinicians to detect delirium reliably in less than a minute and a half, with most patients screening negative in less than a minute on an initial 2-item screener.80
  • Recognizing the link between delirium and acute encephalopathy encourages diagnostic reliability by standardizing clinical definitions and allowing for systematic detection efforts.81

1. “Involves a chronic illness with susceptibility to exacerbations or abrupt decline.”

  • Acute and chronic forms of cognitive impairment share a bidirectional relationship such that preexisting cognitive impairment increases the risk of delirium and delirium increases the risk of subsequent cognitive decline and dementia.82 The relationship between delirium and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias remains of critical importance to older adults, especially within the Age-Friendly Health Systems and Geriatric Surgery Verification Program initiatives.
  • Delirium superimposed on dementia may be a particularly virulent condition and appears to involve the acceleration of decline and increased risk of mortality.83
  • Further, these proposed changes, by requiring clinical specificity, bear similarity to the recent changes in dementia diagnostic codes that provide greater specification of neuropsychiatric disturbances beyond simply “with/without behavioral disturbances.”84

2. “Serves as a marker for advanced disease states across multiple different comorbid conditions.”

  • Delirium is common across hospital settings and comorbidities, in particular occurring in roughly a third of hospitalized older adults.81
  • Prioritizing delirium detection facilitates the recognition of mental status changes heralding clinical deterioration for prompt recognition and redress of contributing clinical factors.
  • Regarding its broad applicability to clinical care, mental status changes may be regarded as a vital sign.85,86

3. “Reflects systemic impact.”

  • Delirium is an essential element of the Age-Friendly Health System, with deep interconnections with each of the 4M’s,87 and Geriatric Verification Program88 initiatives.
  • Delirium in post-acute care settings is associated with more than twice the risk of 30-day mortality, 40% increased risk of 30-day hospital readmission, and 40% lower rate of discharge home within 30 days.89
  • Table 3 (see above) details many aspects of delirium’s systemic impact.

4. “Post-operative/post-procedure condition/complication impacting recovery.”

  • “Postoperative delirium” is the uniformly recommended term to describe acute neurocognitive disturbances after surgery.90
  • Apart from the nearly universal experience of postoperative pain, delirium is arguably the most common complication after major surgery and has an outsized impact on postoperative recovery.91 As described in the clinically focused review in NEJM by Dr. Marcantonio,91 delirium is associated with: a 2- to 5-fold increased risk of postoperative complications, including risk of death, an additional 2–5 days length of stay, a 3-fold increased risk of institutional placement at discharge, poor functional recovery, and new dementia diagnosis.
  • The healthcare costs and sequelae attributable to delirium consider not only incremental costs during the index episode of care but also care utilization over the following year.21

5. “Typically requires higher level of care (that is, intensive monitoring, greater number of caregivers, additional testing, intensive care unit care, extended length of stay).”

  • We refer, again, to Table 3 above.

6. “Impedes patient cooperation or management of care or both.”

  • Patient experience must be considered when discussing the distinctions between delirium and TME. TME draws attention to underlying pathobiology, but it does not specify the clinical manifestation of that disturbance and the diverse ways that its neuropsychiatric disturbances routinely impede care delivery and recovery.10 A diagnosis of delirium, on the other hand, centralizes the patient’s experience, drawing attention to the importance of the patient’s mental status and care engagement.50,92,93
  • A diagnosis of delirium requires a clinician to characterize a patient’s mental status. This information is essential so that clinicians understand a patient’s ability to engage meaningfully in care decisions, have discussions about their care with clinicians and loved ones, and participate productively in various aspects of care.
  • Additionally, identifying delirium as “delirium” encourages evaluation and monitoring for neuropsychiatric disturbances that increase the risk of danger, including impulsivity, risk of falls, inadvertent self-extubation or line removals, and other elements of compromised care.94

7. “Recent (last 10 years) change in best practice, or in practice guidelines and review of the extent to which these changes have led to concomitant changes in expected resource use.”

  • To our knowledge, there is no defined treatment pathway for the TME diagnoses; however, several guidelines published in the past 10 years exist for delirium, both in the United States (e.g., by the American Geriatrics Society,the Society for Critical Care Medicine,Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,95 and American Psychiatric Association [update currently in process]) and internationally (e.g., the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence,96 the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network,97 Australian Delirium Care Standard,98 European Society of Anaesthesiology,99 Association of Scientific Medical Societies of Germany,100 and Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer101).

8. “Denotes organ system instability or failure.”

  • Although the term “acute brain failure” is discouraged by the recent multi-society statement on nomenclature (for its redundancy rather than for its inaccurate connotations),this term was the subtitle of Lipowski’s first of two delirium monographs.102 Nomenclature aside, there is no question that delirium represents a global disturbance in cognition as a form of “failure of neurocognition”103 and global dysfunction.
  • Delirium is associated with markers of brain damage including on postmortem neuropathology,104 elevated neurofilament light chain (marker of axonal damage),105,106 elevated serum tau,107 and several inflammatory markers known to index neural injury.108

9. “Represents end of life/near death or has reached an advanced stage associated with systemic physiologic decompensation and debility.”

  • Delirium is a state of systemic physiological decompensation associated with advanced illness. Delirium at the end of life (“terminal delirium”) is a common expression of advanced disease that can cause patients and their families distress, and dangerous behavioral disturbances.109

Rectifying reimbursement actively facilitates prevention efforts

Finally, we consider that these changes would facilitate delirium prevention efforts as well. Delirium is costly, and its complexity designation should be commensurate with its economic impact. However, delirium prevention efforts work, preventing roughly 40% of delirium.110,111 The costs associated with delirium not only justify its designation as MCC but also encourage widespread delirium prevention efforts. Care bundles such as the AGS CoCare® HELP 112,113 and the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s ICU Liberation A-to-F bundle114,115 have been shown to be both effective at preventing delirium and cost effective. How might a change in delirium’s complexity designation incentivize adoption of such delirium care bundles?

Despite the effectiveness of delirium prevention bundles, encouraging delirium prevention efforts alone, without changing the complexity designation of delirium, would not be enough. This is because most delirium is not preventable; this includes both delirium prevalent on admission (inherently not preventable116) and the 60% of incident delirium that is not currently preventable with modern delirium bundles.111 Designating delirium as MCC would signal to hospitals the costs associated with delirium, thereby leading to a greater awareness of its scope and healthcare impact. It would also be apparent that additional reimbursement for delirium as MCC is modest relative to the cost savings realized by delirium prevention.113 This is because the incremental increase in reimbursement for delirium as MCC is relevant only for the portion of patients without a separate qualifying MCC . Insurance companies would also have reason to incentivize hospitals to implement delirium preventive care. Further still, parallel efforts by the Age-Friendly Health Systems initiative117 along with the increasingly integrated AGS CoCare® HELP,118 the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s ICU Liberation A-F Bundle,119 and the American College of Surgery’s Geriatric Surgery Verification Program,120 and the integrative work of the American Delirium Society121 provide a collective counterbalance in leading and advocating for delirium prevention.

In fact, one imagines a potentially stronger argument for how addressing the current reimbursement disparity between delirium and acute encephalopathy could advance not only best practices but also facilitate delirium prevention and improve patient care. We are currently witnessing an epidemic of burnout among clinicians in acute medical settings,122 fueled in part by the behavioral complexity of hospitalized patients with cognitive disorders. Currently, however, the burden of delirium bundles and other non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium is being placed on nurses, practitioners, and other clinicians providing direct patient care. Based on the change in reimbursement outlined in our request, improved revenue for delirium is expected to more than offset the costs of investing in dedicated staff to ensure the consistent, successful implementation of delirium bundles, thereby offloading already-overstretched clinicians. Again, the cost equation of these bundles strongly suggests that, given sufficient ‘energy of activation’ to see them implemented, they would be financially self-sustaining.113

Clinical impact statement

Our proposal represents the logical conclusion of understanding the integrated nature of delirium and acute encephalopathy. We expect that this proposal, which aligns reimbursement with a robust scientific literature and clinical practice guidelines, will facilitate improved patient care and outcomes by way of encouraging enhanced delirium detection and actionable delirium clinical pathways.

Many clinicians and healthcare systems are simply unaware of the scope and impact of delirium. Those who know the scope and have attempted to implement delirium detection efforts and delirium pathways know how hard it is to get buy-in for these efforts, or to develop sustainable quality improvement projects that do not depend on a single person or a small group of dedicated champions to keep it alive. Our proposal, if accepted, would provide healthcare institutions with appropriate and justified incentives to provide appropriate support to patients with the greatest cognitive and functional vulnerability—specifically, those at risk for complications and poor outcomes. In view of such a change, one envisions education efforts to clinical staff about what delirium is, what it looks like, and why it matters, as well as practical tools including optimized electronic health records for delirium functionality and the availability of non-pharmacological interventions.


Summary

We are requesting that causally specified delirium codes be designated as MCC. This proposal is aligned with the principles of value-based care and the aim of the MS-DRG system to accurately account for the variance in healthcare costs.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Oldham, MD
President-Elect, American Delirium Society

The following organizations are in support of this proposal (in alphabetical order) :

  • Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry
  • American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
  • American Delirium Society
  • American Geriatrics Society
  • American Thoracic Society
  • Association of Medicine and Psychiatry
  • Society of Critical Care Medicine
  • Society of Hospital Medicine (preliminarily)

Additionally, the American Academy of Neurology and American Psychiatric Association

Additional Supplements

  • “An Analysis of Annual Nationwide Coding of CC Specified Delirium and MCC Encephalopathy.” This analysis estimates the number of hospital encounters this proposal would affect annually.
  • Slooter AJC, Otte WM, Devlin JW, et al. Updated nomenclature of delirium and acute encephalopathy: statement of ten Societies. Intensive care medicine 2020;46(5):1020-1022.
  • Oldham MA, Holloway RG. Delirium disorder: Integrating delirium and acute encephalopathy. Neurology 2020;95(4):173-178.

References

1. Slooter AJC, Otte WM, Devlin JW, et al. Updated nomenclature of delirium and acute encephalopathy: statement of ten Societies. Intensive Care Med 2020;46(5):1020-1022. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05907-4.

2. Oldham MA, Holloway RG. Delirium disorder: Integrating delirium and acute encephalopathy. Neurology 2020;95(4):173-178. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009949.

3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Delirium: prevention, diagnosis and management in hospital and long-term care. (Clinical guideline) (https://www.nice.org/uk/guidance/cg103).

4. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018;46(9):e825-e873. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003299.

5. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Risk reduction and mangaement of delirium.

6. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older A. American Geriatrics Society abstracted clinical practice guideline for postoperative delirium in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2015;63(1):142-50. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.13281.

7. Wilson JE, Mart MF, Cunningham C, et al. Delirium. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020;6(1):90. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00223-4.

8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.

9. World Health Organization (WHO). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: World Health Organization, 1993.

10. Oldham MA. Delirium disorder: Unity in diversity. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2022;74:32-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.11.007.

11. Sutter R, Kaplan PW. Clinical and electroencephalographic correlates of acute encephalopathy. J Clin Neurophysiol 2013;30(5):443-53. DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182a73bc2.

12. Sutter R, Kaplan PW, Valenca M, De Marchis GM. EEG for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Acute Nonhypoxic Encephalopathy: History and Current Evidence. J Clin Neurophysiol 2015;32(6):456-64. DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000164.

13. Tesh RA, Sun H, Jing J, et al. VE-CAM-S: Visual EEG-Based Grading of Delirium Severity and Associations With Clinical Outcomes. Crit Care Explor 2022;4(1):e0611. DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000611.

14. Kimchi EY, Neelagiri A, Whitt W, et al. Clinical EEG slowing correlates with delirium severity and predicts poor clinical outcomes. Neurology 2019;93(13):e1260-e1271. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008164.

15. Cole MG, Ciampi A, Belzile E, Zhong L. Persistent delirium in older hospital patients: a systematic review of frequency and prognosis. Age Ageing 2009;38(1):19-26. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn253.

16. Serafim RB, Soares M, Bozza FA, et al. Outcomes of subsyndromal delirium in ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2017;21(1):179. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1765-3.

17. Rosgen BK, Krewulak KD, Stelfox HT, Ely EW, Davidson JE, Fiest KM. The association of delirium severity with patient and health system outcomes in hospitalised patients: a systematic review. Age Ageing 2020;49(4):549-557. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afaa053.

18. Pisani MA, Kong SY, Kasl SV, Murphy TE, Araujo KL, Van Ness PH. Days of delirium are associated with 1-year mortality in an older intensive care unit population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180(11):1092-7. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200904-0537OC.

19. Singh B, Murad MH, Prokop LJ, et al. Meta-analysis of Glasgow coma scale and simplified motor score in predicting traumatic brain injury outcomes. Brain Inj 2013;27(3):293-300. DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2012.743182.

20. Leslie DL, Inouye SK. The importance of delirium: economic and societal costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59 Suppl 2:S241-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03671.x.

21. Gou RY, Hshieh TT, Marcantonio ER, et al. One-Year Medicare Costs Associated With Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Major Elective Surgery. JAMA Surg 2021;156(5):430-442. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.7260.

22. LaHue SC, Douglas VC, Kuo T, et al. Association between Inpatient Delirium and Hospital Readmission in Patients >/= 65 Years of Age: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J Hosp Med 2019;14(4):201-206. DOI: 10.12788/jhm.3130.

23. Rudolph JL, Inouye SK, Jones RN, et al. Delirium: an independent predictor of functional decline after cardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58(4):643-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02762.x.

24. Oldenbeuving AW, de Kort PL, Jansen BP, Algra A, Kappelle LJ, Roks G. Delirium in the acute phase after stroke: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Neurology 2011;76(11):993-9. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318210411f.

25. Witlox J, Eurelings LS, de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Eikelenboom P, van Gool WA. Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2010;304(4):443-51. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1013.

26. Fong TG, Jones RN, Shi P, et al. Delirium accelerates cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2009;72(18):1570-5. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a4129a.

27. Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N Engl J Med 2013;369(14):1306-16. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301372.

28. Kunicki ZJ, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER, et al. Six-Year Cognitive Trajectory in Older Adults Following Major Surgery and Delirium. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183(5):442-450. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0144.

29. Pereira JV, Aung Thein MZ, Nitchingham A, Caplan GA. Delirium in older adults is associated with development of new dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2021. DOI: 10.1002/gps.5508.

30. Aung Thein MZ, Pereira JV, Nitchingham A, Caplan GA. A call to action for delirium research: Meta-analysis and regression of delirium associated mortality. BMC Geriatr 2020;20(1):325. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01723-4.

31. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA 2004;291(14):1753-62. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.14.1753.

32. McCoy TH, Jr. Mapping the Delirium Literature Through Probabilistic Topic Modeling and Network Analysis: A Computational Scoping Review. Psychosomatics 2019;60(2):105-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2018.12.003.

33. Khachaturian AS, Hayden KM, Devlin JW, et al. International drive to illuminate delirium: A developing public health blueprint for action. Alzheimers Dement 2020;16(5):711-725. DOI: 10.1002/alz.12075.

34. Oh ES, Akeju O, Avidan MS, et al. A roadmap to advance delirium research: Recommendations from the NIDUS Scientific Think Tank. Alzheimers Dement 2020;16(5):726-733. DOI: 10.1002/alz.12076.

35. Wang S, Lindroth H, Chan C, et al. A Systematic Review of Delirium Biomarkers and Their Alignment with the NIA-AA Research Framework. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16836.

36. Milbrandt EB, Deppen S, Harrison PL, et al. Costs associated with delirium in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med 2004;32(4):955-62. DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000119429.16055.92.

37. Leslie DL, Marcantonio ER, Zhang Y, Leo-Summers L, Inouye SK. One-year health care costs associated with delirium in the elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2008;168(1):27-32. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2007.4.

38. Kinchin I, Mitchell E, Agar M, Trepel D. The economic cost of delirium: A systematic review and quality assessment. Alzheimers Dement 2021;17(6):1026-1041. DOI: 10.1002/alz.12262.

39. Vasilevskis EE, Chandrasekhar R, Holtze CH, et al. The Cost of ICU Delirium and Coma in the Intensive Care Unit Patient. Med Care 2018;56(10):890-897. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000975.

40. Dziegielewski C, Skead C, Canturk T, et al. Delirium and Associated Length of Stay and Costs in Critically Ill Patients. Crit Care Res Pract 2021;2021:6612187. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6612187.

41. Taha A, Xu H, Ahmed R, et al. Medical and economic burden of delirium on hospitalization outcomes of acute respiratory failure: A retrospective national cohort. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;102(2):e32652. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032652.

42. Yang Q, Wang J, Huang X, Xu Y, Zhang Y. Incidence and risk factors associated with postoperative delirium following primary elective total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective nationwide inpatient sample database study. BMC Psychiatry 2020;20(1):343. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-020-02742-6.

43. Yang Q, Wang J, Chen Y, Lian Q, Shi Z, Zhang Y. Incidence and risk factors of postoperative delirium following total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective Nationwide Inpatient Sample database study. Knee 2022;35:61-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2022.02.006.

44. Yang Q, Fu J, Pan X, et al. A retrospective analysis of the incidence of postoperative delirium and the importance of database selection for its definition. BMC Psychiatry 2023;23(1):88. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-023-04576-4.

45. Geriatric Medicine Research C. Delirium is prevalent in older hospital inpatients and associated with adverse outcomes: results of a prospective multi-centre study on World Delirium Awareness Day. BMC Med 2019;17(1):229. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1458-7.

46. Zipser CM, Spiller TR, Hildenbrand FF, et al. Discharge Destinations of Delirious Patients: Findings From a Prospective Cohort Study of 27,026 Patients From a Large Health Care System. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2022;23(8):1322-1327 e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.01.051.

47. Madrigal C, Kim J, Jiang L, et al. Delirium and Functional Recovery in Patients Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities After Hospitalization for Heart Failure. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(3):e2037968. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37968.

48. Sillner AY, Holle CL, Rudolph JL. The Overlap Between Falls and Delirium in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Clin Geriatr Med 2019;35(2):221-236. DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2019.01.004.

49. Kuusisto-Gussmann E, Hockelmann C, von der Luhe V, Schmadig R, Baltes M, Stephan A. Patients' experiences of delirium: A systematic review and meta-summary of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2021;77(9):3692-3706. DOI: 10.1111/jan.14865.

50. Gaete Ortega D, Papathanassoglou E, Norris CM. The lived experience of delirium in intensive care unit patients: A meta-ethnography. Aust Crit Care 2020;33(2):193-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.01.003.

51. Schmitt EM, Gallagher J, Albuquerque A, et al. Perspectives on the Delirium Experience and Its Burden: Common Themes Among Older Patients, Their Family Caregivers, and Nurses. Gerontologist 2019;59(2):327-337. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnx153.

52. Racine AM, D'Aquila M, Schmitt EM, et al. Delirium Burden in Patients and Family Caregivers: Development and Testing of New Instruments. Gerontologist 2019;59(5):e393-e402. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gny041.

53. Assa AH, Wicks MN, Umberger RA. Family Caregivers' Experience of Patients With Delirium in Critical Care Units: A State-of-the-Science Integrative Review. Am J Crit Care 2021;30(6):471-478. DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2021394.

54. Thomas N, Coleman M, Terry D. Nurses' Experience of Caring for Patients with Delirium: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Nurs Rep 2021;11(1):164-174. DOI: 10.3390/nursrep11010016.

55. Oldham MA. Follow the Money: The Widening Coding Disparity Between Acute Encephalopathy and Delirium. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.02.004.

56. American Medical Association. ICD-10-CM 2022 the Complete Official Codebook with Guidelines: American Medical Association, 2021.

57. Franks JA, Anderson JL, Bowman E, Li CY, Kennedy RE, Yun H. Inpatient Diagnosis of Delirium and Encephalopathy: Coding Trends 2011-2018. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2021.12.006.

58. Integra Med Analytics v. Providence Health Services. U. S. District Court Central District of California - Western Division; 2018.

59. Pierson B. Integra loses bid to revive its data-based FCA case v. Providence. Reuters(R). (https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/integra-loses-bid-revive-its-data-based-fca-case-v-providence-2021-05-13/).

60. Integra Med Analytics v. Providence Health and Services. U. S. District Court Central District of California; 2019.

61. Inouye SK, Westendorp RG, Saczynski JS. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet 2014;383(9920):911-22. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60688-1.

62. Ormseth CH, LaHue SC, Oldham MA, Josephson SA, Whitaker E, Douglas VC. Predisposing and Precipitating Factors Associated With Delirium: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6(1):e2249950. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49950.

63. Inouye SK. The dilemma of delirium: clinical and research controversies regarding diagnosis and evaluation of delirium in hospitalized elderly medical patients. Am J Med 1994;97(3):278-88. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90011-6.

64. van Eijk MM, van Marum RJ, Klijn IA, de Wit N, Kesecioglu J, Slooter AJ. Comparison of delirium assessment tools in a mixed intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2009;37(6):1881-5. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a00118.

65. Elie M, Rousseau F, Cole M, Primeau F, McCusker J, Bellavance F. Prevalence and detection of delirium in elderly emergency department patients. CMAJ 2000;163(8):977-81. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11068569).

66. Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, Katz KH, Cooney LM, Jr. Nurses' recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med 2001;161(20):2467-73. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700159).

67. de Rooij SE, Schuurmans MJ, van der Mast RC, Levi M. Clinical subtypes of delirium and their relevance for daily clinical practice: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2005;20(7):609-15. DOI: 10.1002/gps.1343.

68. Robinson TN, Raeburn CD, Tran ZV, Brenner LA, Moss M. Motor subtypes of postoperative delirium in older adults. Arch Surg 2011;146(3):295-300. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.14.

69. Todd A, Blackley S, Burton JK, et al. Reduced level of arousal and increased mortality in adult acute medical admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr 2017;17(1):283. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0661-7.

70. Garcez FB, Aliberti MJR, Poco PCE, et al. Delirium and Adverse Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;68(11):2440-2446. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16803.

71. Krewulak KD, Stelfox HT, Ely EW, Fiest KM. Risk factors and outcomes among delirium subtypes in adult ICUs: A systematic review. J Crit Care 2020;56:257-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.01.017.

72. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Guiding Principles for Making Changes to Severity Levels. Washington, DC. 2020:85(182) Fed. Reg. 58,550-58,554.

73. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA 2001;286(21):2703-10. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.21.2703.

74. Han JH, Wilson A, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Diagnosing delirium in older emergency department patients: validity and reliability of the delirium triage screen and the brief confusion assessment method. Ann Emerg Med 2013;62(5):457-465. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.05.003.

75. Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med 2014;160(8):526-33. DOI: 10.7326/M13-1927.

76. Vasunilashorn SM, Guess J, Ngo L, et al. Derivation and Validation of a Severity Scoring Method for the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method--Defined Delirium. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016;64(8):1684-9. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14234.

77. Khan BA, Perkins AJ, Gao S, et al. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 Delirium Severity Scale: A Novel Delirium Severity Instrument for Use in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2017;45(5):851-857. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002368.

78. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990;113(12):941-8. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2240918).

79. Motyl CM, Ngo L, Zhou W, et al. Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency of Four Delirium Screening Protocols. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;68(11):2572-2578. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16711.

80. Marcantonio ER, Fick DM, Jung Y, et al. Comparative Implementation of a Brief App-Directed Protocol for Delirium Identification by Hospitalists, Nurses, and Nursing Assistants : A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med 2022;175(1):65-73. DOI: 10.7326/M21-1687.

81. Fuchs S, Bode L, Ernst J, Marquetand J, von Kanel R, Bottger S. Delirium in elderly patients: Prospective prevalence across hospital services. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2020;67:19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.08.010.

82. Oldham MA. Connecting acute and chronic neurocognitive impairment. Int Psychogeriatr 2022;34(4):323-325. DOI: 10.1017/S104161022200028X.

83. Lee HB, Oldham MA, Sieber FE, Oh ES. Impact of Delirium After Hip Fracture Surgery on One-Year Mortality in Patients With or Without Dementia: A Case of Effect Modification. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2017;25(3):308-315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2016.10.008.

84. First M. New ICD-10-CM Codes for Neurocognitive Disorders Effective October 1. Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. 24 August 2022.

85. Flaherty JH, Rudolph J, Shay K, et al. Delirium is a serious and under-recognized problem: why assessment of mental status should be the sixth vital sign. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2007;8(5):273-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2007.03.006.

86. Flaherty JH, Shay K, Weir C, et al. The development of a mental status vital sign for use across the spectrum of care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10(6):379-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.04.001.

87. Fick DM, Shrestha P. Delirium in Persons With Dementia: Integrating the 4Ms of Age-Friendly Care as a Set Into the Care of Older People. J Gerontol Nurs 2022;48(10):3-6. DOI: 10.3928/00989134-20220909-01.

88. Katlic MR, Robinson TN. The Costs of Postoperative Delirium. JAMA Surg 2021;156(5):470-471. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.7257.

89. Kosar CM, Thomas KS, Inouye SK, Mor V. Delirium During Postacute Nursing Home Admission and Risk for Adverse Outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017;65(7):1470-1475. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14823.

90. Evered L, Silbert B, Knopman DS, et al. Recommendations for the Nomenclature of Cognitive Change Associated with Anaesthesia and Surgery-2018. Anesthesiology 2018;129(5):872-879. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002334.

91. Marcantonio ER. Postoperative delirium: a 76-year-old woman with delirium following surgery. JAMA 2012;308(1):73-81. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.6857.

92. Inouye SK. Joining Forces against Delirium - From Organ-System Care to Whole-Human Care. N Engl J Med 2020;382(6):499-501. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1910499.

93. Ross IR. Through the Fog. N Engl J Med 2021;384(20):1882-1883.

94. Oldham MA, Slooter AJC, Ely EW, Crone C, Maldonado JR, Rosenthal LJ. An Interdisciplinary Reappraisal of Delirium and Proposed Subtypes. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry 2023;64(3):248-261. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.07.001.

95. Burry L, Hutton B, D. W, et al. Medicines to treat delirium in critically ill adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019(9):CD011749.

96. O'Mahony R, Murthy L, Akunne A, Young J, Guideline Development G. Synopsis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline for prevention of delirium. Ann Intern Med 2011;154(11):746-51. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00006.

97. Soiza RL, Myint PK. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 157: Guidelines on Risk Reduction and Management of Delirium. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55(8). DOI: 10.3390/medicina55080491.

98. NSW: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Delirium Clinical Care Standard. 2021.

99. Aldecoa C, Bettelli G, Bilotta F, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2017;34(4):192-214. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000594.

100. Martin J, Heymann A, Basell K, et al. Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version. Ger Med Sci 2010;8:Doc02. DOI: 10.3205/000091.

101. Matsuda Y, Tanimukai H, Inoue S, et al. JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020;50(5):586-593. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa003.

102. Lipowski ZJ. Delirium: Acute Brain Failure in Man. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1980.

103. Maldonado JR. Acute Brain Failure: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Management, and Sequelae of Delirium. Crit Care Clin 2017;33(3):461-519. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccc.2017.03.013.

104. Davis DH, Muniz-Terrera G, Keage HA, et al. Association of Delirium With Cognitive Decline in Late Life: A Neuropathologic Study of 3 Population-Based Cohort Studies. JAMA Psychiatry 2017;74(3):244-251. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3423.

105. Krogseth M, Davis D, Jackson TA, et al. Delirium, neurofilament light chain, and progressive cognitive impairment: analysis of a prospective Norwegian population-based cohort. Lancet Healthy Longev 2023;4(8):e399-e408. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00098-3.

106. Casey CP, Lindroth H, Mohanty R, et al. Postoperative delirium is associated with increased plasma neurofilament light. Brain 2020;143(1):47-54. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awz354.

107. Ballweg T, White M, Parker M, et al. Association between plasma tau and postoperative delirium incidence and severity: a prospective observational study. Br J Anaesth 2021;126(2):458-466. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.08.061.

108. Wang S, Greene R, Song Y, et al. Postoperative delirium and its relationship with biomarkers for dementia: a meta-analysis. Int Psychogeriatr 2022:1-14. DOI: 10.1017/S104161022100274X.

109. Moyer DD. Review article: terminal delirium in geriatric patients with cancer at end of life. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2011;28(1):44-51. DOI: 10.1177/1049909110376755.

110. Hshieh TT, Yue J, Oh E, et al. Effectiveness of multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(4):512-20. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7779.

111. Burton JK, Craig LE, Yong SQ, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;7:CD013307. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013307.pub2.

112. Fick DM. AGS CoCare((R)): HELP Reduces In-Hospital Delirium. J Gerontol Nurs 2023;49(8):51-52. DOI: 10.3928/00989134-20230707-02.

113. Hshieh TT, Yang T, Gartaganis SL, Yue J, Inouye SK. Hospital Elder Life Program: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Effectiveness. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2018;26(10):1015-1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2018.06.007.

114. Pun BT, Balas MC, Barnes-Daly MA, et al. Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults. Crit Care Med 2019;47(1):3-14. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003482.

115. Collinsworth AW, Priest EL, Masica AL. Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of the ABCDE Bundle: Impact of Bundle Adherence on Inpatient and 1-Year Mortality and Costs of Care. Crit Care Med 2020;48(12):1752-1759. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004609.

116. O'Regan NA, Fitzgerald J, Adamis D, Molloy DW, Meagher D, Timmons S. Predictors of Delirium Development in Older Medical Inpatients: Readily Identifiable Factors at Admission. J Alzheimers Dis 2018;64(3):775-785. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-180178.

117. John A. Hartford Foundation, Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Age-Friendly Health Systems. (ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/).

118. American Geriatrics Society. HELP and the 4M's Overview. (help.agscocare.org/fulltext/null/H00110/H00110_PART001_001/366).

119. Society of Critical Care Medicine. ICU Liberation A-F Bundle. (www.sccm.org/iculiberation/abcdef-bundles).

120. American College of Surgeons. Geriatric Surgery Verification. (www.facs.org/quality-programs/accreditation-and-verification/geriatric-surgery-verification).

121. American Delirium Society. American Delirium Society. (https://americandeliriumsociety.org/).

122. Aiken LH, Lasater KB, Sloane DM, et al. Physician and Nurse Well-Being and Preferred Interventions to Address Burnout in Hospital Practice: Factors Associated With Turnover, Outcomes, and Patient Safety. JAMA Health Forum 2023;4(7):e231809. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1809.

Advertisement