key: cord-0813228-nn3s1vjb authors: Devlin, John W.; Skrobik, Yoanna title: What language conveys distress and reassurance? date: 2022-03-29 journal: Intensive Care Med DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06687-0 sha: e7891dc77f276ab3d766192856fc584815feaa95 doc_id: 813228 cord_uid: nn3s1vjb nan Method for intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) assessment fails to capture how delirium 'feels' [5] . Compassion and reassurance are at the core of caring. In non-ICU settings, they improve outcomes [6] ; regrettably, the critical care literature addressing caring is largely limited to level-of-care discussions. Reassurance and systematic reorientation are untested as a delirium-modifying intervention in the critically ill [1] . Recent compelling evidence nonetheless suggests clinician engagement and systematic delivery of reassurance prevents delirium effectively, and improves outcomes, in older surgical patients [7] . Few ICU patients receive such care. Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the incremental worsening mental health and resilience in ICU healthcare workers may diminish their capacity to provide it if compassion fatigue is prevalent [8] . Moreover, the pandemic essentially barred families from accessing their loved ones. In parallel, ICU teams reduced their bedside presence during interprofessional rounds [9] . Delirium symptoms occur solely at night in 40% of patients [10] . If the bedside nurse were to accurately document these symptoms, would the following shift's daytime nurse note and integrate their presence in the care plan? In the current efforts to promote efficiency in ICUs, interprofessional rounds focus on 'problem lists'; their review cannot comprehensively integrate what's documented in health records, and information gets lost. Incomplete or missed information transmission ranks second only to medication errors as a source of ICU iatrogenic morbidity [11] . It follows that individual delirium symptoms are likely to be missed, or remain unaddressed, during ICU team discussions. In this issue of Intensive Care Medicine [12] , Young and colleagues present study results from an ICU cohort evaluated twice daily with the CAM-ICU. In parallel, behavioral disturbances were identified with natural language *Correspondence: j.devlin@neu.edu 1 Bouve College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Full author information is available at the end of the article processing (NLP) using 24 previously validated words documented in ICU chart notes. Over twice as many patients had a behavioral disturbance for at least one day (54%) compared to those with a CAM-ICU assessment (25%). Among patients with behavioral disturbance(s), 43% were CAM-ICU positive in the ICU; among CAM-ICU positive patients, 93% manifested behavioral disturbance(s). On their first ICU day, 32% had a behavioral disturbance; only 11% were CAM-ICU positive. The cumulative number of notes describing behavioral disturbance was nearly twice as high in patients who were CAM-ICU positive. Regardless of CAM-ICU positivity, after controlling for age, type of admission, and severity of illness, and using time-dependent Cox modeling, behavioral disturbance(s) were associated with significantly greater antipsychotic use, a longer ICU stay, and increased mortality. We applaud the authors for conducting one of the first NLP study focused on characterizing behavioral disturbances as they relate to delirium in the ICU. The small cohort size (n = 2313) and the high 'behavioral disturbance day(s)' prevalence precluded their ability to develop and calibrate a deep learning model to predict behavioral disturbance occurrence, an important next research step. For example, in one study of 101,196 critically ill adults, deep learning models predicted ICU mortality with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) of 0.922 [13] . In this NLP study, behavioral disturbances focused on agitation, combativeness, and aggression. Unfortunately, neither pain, a significantly under-evaluated and inaccurately reported finding in ICU settings [14] , nor sedation exposure or effect (e.g., Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, a potential CAM-ICU confounder) [1] were captured. Why antipsychotics were chosen as a primary outcome in the analysis remains unclear; they do not reduce delirium [1] or constitute a first-line treatment for ICU agitation [1] and would not palliate any other reason for agitation or aggression. Common symptoms which plague delirious patients, such as anxiety, fear and delusions, were not considered [4] . Behavioral symptom severity was not documented, and may have biased results if clinicians are more likely to note symptoms more manifest because of their gravity. Lastly, the clinicians documenting the behavioral disturbances were also the ones screening patients for delirium with the CAM-ICU. Despite these limitations, this paper has important implications for improving ICU practices and guiding future research efforts. Delirium and other patient features are associated with clinically relevant poor outcomes [1] . However, beyond agitation, ICU behavioral symptoms were not previously recognized as outcome predictors. The best-validated delirium scales, the CAM-ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, are no panacea [15] . Two decades of ICU delirium screening research on protocolized assessments have yet to prove their unequivocal value in improving patient care in rigorous trials [1] . Recognizing scale-based or clinical delirium assessments can be incomplete, undocumented, or poorly communicated, this report offers an alternative approach. Extracting behavioral disturbance data from clinical charts, using apparently clinically important features, may help us do better, particularly if behavioral disturbance NLP terms are refined using larger cohorts that would permit better modeling when deep learning approaches are applied. Whether Young et al. 's approach can then translate into higher quality patient symptom monitoring, and even perhaps provide feedback, incentive and triggers to foster reassurance and compassion in ICU clinicians, allowing them to evaluate which are most useful, remains to be established. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU Effect of nonpharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis Effects of routine monitoring of delirium in a surgical/trauma intensive care unit Delirium-related distress in the ICU: a qualitative meta-synthesis of patient and family perspectives and experiences Partnering with family members to detect delirium in critically ill patients The role of empathy in therapy and the physician-patient relationship Outcomes of a delirium prevention program in older persons after elective surgery: a steppedwedge, cluster randomized clinical trial Mental health outcomes of ICU and non-ICU healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study Impact of restricted visitation policies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on communication between critically ill patients, families and clinicians: a qualitative interview study Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium Improving the patient handoff process in the intensive care unit: keys to reducing errors and improving outcomes Natural language processing diagnosed behavioral disturbance vs. confusion assessment for delirium for the intensive care unit: prevalence, patient characteristics, overlap, and association with treatments and outcomes Validation of prediction models for critical care outcomes using natural language processing of electronic health record data Pain, analgesic effectiveness and long-term opioid dependency The accurate recognition of delirium in the ICU: more new clothes for the emperor The authors have no conflicts of interest. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.