Dataset Information

Effect of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies have shown that residents in nursing homes often are exposed to inappropriate medication. Particular concern has been raised about the consumption of psychoactive drugs, which are commonly prescribed for nursing home residents suffering from dementia. This review is an update of a Norwegian systematic review commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The purpose of the review was to identify and summarise the effect of interventions aimed at reducing potentially inappropriate use or prescribing of drugs in nursing homes.

Methods

We searched for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, DARE and HTA, with the last update in April 2010. Two of the authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion. Data on interventions, participants, comparison intervention, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table and GRADE, respectively. Outcomes assessed were use of or prescribing of drugs (primary) and the health-related outcomes falls, physical limitation, hospitalisation and mortality (secondary).

Results

Due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, we employed a narrative approach. Twenty randomised controlled trials were included from 1631 evaluated references. Ten studies tested different kinds of educational interventions while seven studies tested medication reviews by pharmacists. Only one study was found for each of the interventions geriatric care teams, early psychiatric intervening or activities for the residents combined with education of health care personnel. Several reviews were identified, but these either concerned elderly in general or did not satisfy all the requirements for systematic reviews.

Conclusions

Interventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. Due to poor quality of the evidence, no conclusions may be drawn about the effect of the other three interventions on drug use, or of either intervention on health-related outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Forsetlund L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3108292 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Forsetlund Louise L Eike Morten C MC Gjerberg Elisabeth E Vist Gunn E GE

BMC geriatrics 20110417

<h4>Background</h4>Studies have shown that residents in nursing homes often are exposed to inappropriate medication. Particular concern has been raised about the consumption of psychoactive drugs, which are commonly prescribed for nursing home residents suffering from dementia. This review is an update of a Norwegian systematic review commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The purpose of the review was to identify and summarise the effect of interventions aimed at reducing potentia ...[more]

PMID: 21496345

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrail residents in the nursing home sector call for extra care in prescribing. The Norwegian General Practice Nursing Home (NORGEP-NH) list of 34 explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in nursing homes was developed explicitly for this population. The aim of this study was to employ the NORGEP-NH Criteria to study the extent of potentially inappropriate medication use among nursing home residents and explore possible associated factors.MethodsCross-sectional observational pharmacoepidemiological study from residents in nursing homes in the county of Vestfold, Norway. Data collected 2009-11 included residents' demographic and clinical status and all medications, regular and on demand.Results881 patients from 30 institutions (mean 85.9 years, 68.6% female), were included. According to NORGEP-NH, 43.8% were prescribed at least one potentially inappropriate regular medication, and 9.9% regularly received three or more potentially inappropriate medications. When also including a) the NORGEP-NH Deprescribing Criteria and b) including drugs prescribed for use as needed, 92.7% of all residents received medication that needs particular surveillance according to the NORGEP-NH. 69.7% of the nursing home residents used at least one psychotropic drug regularly. Female residents received more often than males at least one potentially inappropriate regular medication (OR 1.60, p=0.007). Regarding the prescription of three or more concomitant psychotropic medications, odds ratio for females was 1.79 (p=0.03) compared to males. Residents with the best performance in activities of daily living, and residents residing in long-term wards, had higher risk of using three or more psychotropic drugs. Use of multiple psychoactive drugs increased the risk of falls in the course of an acute episode of infection or dehydration (odds ratio 1.70, p=0.009).ConclusionsPrevalence of potentially inappropriate medications in nursing homes according to the NORGEP-NH was extensive, and especially the use of multiple psychotropic drugs. The high prevalence found in this study shows that there is a need for higher awareness of medication use and side effects in the elderly population.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered. Data obtained from clinical trial NCT01023763 registered with ClinicalTrials.gov 12/01/2009.

Project description:Background:Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and z-drugs are effective drugs, but they are prescribed excessively worldwide. International guidelines recommend a maximum treatment duration of 4 weeks. Although these drugs are effective in the short-term, long-term BZD therapy is associated with considerable adverse effects, the development of tolerance and, finally, addiction. However, there are different interventions in terms of patient-centered care that aim to reduce the use of BZDs and z-drugs as well as assist health care professionals (HCPs) in preventing the inappropriate prescription of BZDs. Aim:The aim of this systematic review was to identify interventions that promote patient-centered treatments for inappropriate BZD and z-drug use and to analyze their effectiveness in reducing the inappropriate use of these drugs. Methods:To identify relevant studies, the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Psyndex, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies with controlled designs focusing on adult patients were included. Trials with chronically or mentally ill patients were excluded if long-term BZD and z-drug use was indicated. Study extraction was performed based on the Cochrane Form for study extraction. To assess the quality of the studies, we used a tool based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Results:We identified 7,068 studies and selected 20 for systematic review. Nine interventions focused on patients, nine on HCPs, and two on both patients and HCPs. Intervention types ranged from simple to multifaceted. Patient-centered interventions that provided patient information effectively increased the appropriate use of BZDs. The educational approaches for HCPs that aimed to achieve appropriate prescription reported inconsistent results. The methods that combined informing patients and HCPs led to a significant reduction in BZD use. Conclusions:This is the first review of studies focused on patient-centered approaches to reducing the inappropriate prescription and use of BZDs and z-drugs. The patient-centered dimension of patient information was responsible for a decrease in BZD and z-drug consumption. Further, in some studies, the patient-centered dimensions responsible for reducing the prescription and use of BZDs and z-drugs were the clinician's essential characteristics and clinician-patient communication.

Project description:IntroductionAntipsychotics are used for managing behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) but have risks. Anticholinergics can worsen outcomes in dementia. The Improving Antipsychotic Appropriateness in Dementia Patients educational program (IA-ADAPT) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Partnership to Improve Dementia Care (CMS Partnership) promote improved care for BPSD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of these programs on medication use and BPSD among nursing home residents.MethodsThis quasi-experimental longitudinal study used Medicare and assessment data for Iowa nursing home residents from April 2011 to December 2012. Residents were required to be eligible for six continuous months for inclusion. Antipsychotic use and anticholinergic use were evaluated on a monthly basis, and changes in BPSD were tracked using assessment data. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) per month after exposure to the IA-ADAPT or the start of the CMS Partnership.ResultsOf 426 eligible Iowa nursing homes, 114 were exposed to the IA-ADAPT in 2012. Nursing home exposure to the IA-ADAPT was associated with reduced antipsychotic use (OR [95% CI] = 0.92 [0.89-0.95]) and anticholinergic use (OR [95% CI] = 0.95 [0.92-0.98]), reduced use of excessive antipsychotic doses per CMS guidance (OR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.75-0.86]), increased odds of a potentially appropriate indication among antipsychotic users (OR [95% CI] = 1.04 [1.00-1.09]), and decreased documentation of verbal aggression (OR [95% CI] = 0.96 [0.94-0.99]). Facilities with two or more IA-ADAPT exposures had greater reductions in antipsychotic and anticholinergic use than those with only one. The CMS Partnership was associated with reduced antipsychotic use (OR [95% CI] = 0.96 [0.94-0.98]) and decreased documentation of any measured BPSD (OR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.97-0.99]) as well as delirium specifically (OR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.96-0.99]).DiscussionThis study suggests that the IA-ADAPT and the CMS Partnership improved medication use with no adverse impact on BPSD.

Project description:BackgroundAn epidemic of health disorders can be triggered by a collective manifestation of inappropriate behaviors, usually systematically fueled by non-medical factors at the individual and/or societal levels. This study aimed to (1) landscape and assess the evidence on interventions that reduce inappropriate demand of medical resources (medicines or procedures) by triggering behavioral change among healthcare consumers, (2) map out intervention components that have been tried and tested, and (3) identify the "active ingredients" of behavior change interventions that were proven to be effective in containing epidemics of inappropriate use of medical resources.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO from the databases' inceptions to May 2019, without language restrictions, for behavioral intervention studies. Interventions had to be empirically evaluated with a control group that demonstrated whether the effects of the campaign extended beyond trends occurring in the absence of the intervention. Outcomes of interest were reductions in inappropriate or non-essential use of medicines and/or medical procedures for clinical conditions that do not require them. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion and extracted data on study characteristics (e.g., study design), intervention development, implementation strategies, and effect size. Data extraction sheets were based on the checklist from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.ResultsForty-three studies were included. The behavior change technique taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1), which contains 93 behavioral change techniques (BCTs), was used to characterize components of the interventions reported in the included studies. Of the 93 BCTs, 15 (16%) were identified within the descriptions of the selected studies targeting healthcare consumers. Interventions consisting of education messages, recommended behavior alternatives, and a supporting environment that incentivizes or encourages the adoption of a new behavior were more likely to be successful.ConclusionsThere is a continued tendency in research reporting that mainly stresses the effectiveness of interventions rather than the process of identifying and developing key components and the parameters within which they operate. Reporting "negative results" is likely as critical as reporting "active ingredients" and positive findings for implementation science. This review calls for a standardized approach to report intervention studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019139537.

Project description:BackgroundResearch suggests that collaborative and tailored approaches with external expertise are important to process implementations. We therefore performed a process evaluation of an intervention using participatory action research, tailored information provision, and external coaching to reduce inappropriate psychotropic drug use among nursing home residents with dementia. The process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial assessing the utility of this approach.MethodsWe used Leontjevas' model of process evaluation to guide data collection and analysis, focusing on the relevance and feasibility, extent of performance, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Data on the relevance and feasibility and on the extent of performance were collected using a questionnaire targeting internal project leaders at nursing homes and our external coaches. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified by individual semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure and describe the identified barriers and facilitators.ResultsThe intervention was viewed positively, but it was also considered time consuming due to the involvement of many people and designing a tailored action and implementation plan was viewed as complex. The extent of performance differed between nursing homes. Delays in implementation and suboptimal execution of actions may have reduced effectiveness of the RID intervention in some nursing homes. Barriers to implementation were reorganizations, staff turnover, communication issues, unclear expectations, and perceived time pressures. Implementation also depended on the involvement and skills of key stakeholders, and organizations' readiness to change. Although external coaches stimulated implementation, their additional value was rated variably across organizations.ConclusionsBarriers to implementation occurred on several levels and some barriers appear to be inherent to the nursing home environment and could be points of leverage of future implementation trajectories. This underlines the importance of assessing and supporting organizations in their readiness to change. Sensitivity analyses, taking into account the week in which nursing homes started with implementation and the degree to which actions were implemented as intended, will be appropriate in the effect analyses of the trial.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether a systematic approach to the treatment of pain can reduce agitation in people with moderate to severe dementia living in nursing homes.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.Setting60 clusters (single independent nursing home units) in 18 nursing homes within five municipalities of western Norway.Participants352 residents with moderate to severe dementia and clinically significant behavioural disturbances randomised to a stepwise protocol for the treatment of pain for eight weeks with additional follow-up four weeks after the end of treatment (33 clusters; n = 175) or to usual treatment (control, 27 clusters; n = 177).InterventionParticipants in the intervention group received individual daily treatment of pain for eight weeks according to the stepwise protocol, with paracetamol (acetaminophen), morphine, buprenorphine transdermal patch, or pregabaline. The control group received usual treatment and care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was agitation (scores on Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory). Secondary outcome measures were aggression (scores on neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home version), pain (scores on mobilisation-observation-behaviour-intensity-dementia-2), activities of daily living, and cognition (mini-mental state examination).ResultsAgitation was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with control group after eight weeks (repeated measures analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline score, P < 0.001): the average reduction in scores for agitation was 17% (treatment effect estimate -7.0, 95% confidence interval -3.7 to -10.3). Treatment of pain was also significantly beneficial for the overall severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms (-9.0, -5.5 to -12.6) and pain (-1.3, -0.8 to -1.7), but the groups did not differ significantly for activities of daily living or cognition.ConclusionA systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. Effective management of pain can play an important part in the treatment of agitation and could reduce the number of unnecessary prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in this population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01021696 and Norwegian Medicines Agency EudraCTnr 2008-007490-20.

Dataset Information

Effect of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets