Supportive Interventions Involving Family Carers of Patients With Delirium Superimposed on Dementia in Hospital: A Scoping Review.
Caroline Ashton-Gough, Jennifer Lynch, Claire Goodman
PMID 39985255WHAT IT FOUND
Supportive family involvement in hospital was feasible and sometimes improved carer satisfaction, but evidence that it improved patient delirium outcomes was limited.
Key findings
01The review included 15 studies, but found limited evidence that supportive interventions improved delirium recognition or patient outcomes.
02A specialist medical and mental health unit did not improve patient outcomes 90 days after randomisation, but family carers were more satisfied with care.
03Volunteers were recruited as proxies for family members, but they became an extension of the nursing team rather than providing individualised family knowledge.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The search was limited to English publications and a set date range, so relevant studies may have been missed. The included studies were heterogeneous, and many were non-matched quasi-experimental designs rather than trials. The review did not establish efficacy because many studies measured feasibility, satisfaction or staff perceptions rather than patient delirium outcomes. Family carers were rarely involved in designing the interventions, and few studies examined the quality of the patient-family-carer relationship. Volunteer programmes were not equivalent to family carer involvement because volunteers acted as an extension of the nursing team rather than providing individualised family knowledge.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not report funding or conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that involving family carers or volunteers prevents delirium or improves patient outcomes. The review found limited evidence of efficacy, and the specialist unit trial showed no difference in patient outcomes 90 days after randomisation.