Dataset Information

The OptimaMed intervention to reduce inappropriate medications in nursing home residents with severe dementia: results from a quasi-experimental feasibility pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medication regimens in nursing home (NH) residents with severe dementia should be frequently reviewed to avoid inappropriate medication, overtreatment and adverse drug events, within a comfort care approach. This study aimed at testing the feasibility of an interdisciplinary knowledge exchange (KE) intervention using a medication review guidance tool categorizing medications as either "generally", "sometimes" or "exceptionally" appropriate for NH residents with severe dementia.

Methods

A quasi-experimental feasibility pilot study with 44 participating residents aged 65 years or over with severe dementia was carried out in three NH in Quebec City, Canada. The intervention comprised an information leaflet for residents' families, a 90-min KE session for NH general practitioners (GP), pharmacists and nurses focusing on the medication review guidance tool, a medication review by the pharmacists for participating residents with ensuing team discussion on medication changes, and a post-intervention KE session to obtain feedback from team staff. Medication regimens and levels of pain and of agitation of the participants were evaluated at baseline and at 4 months post-intervention. A questionnaire for team staff explored perceived barriers and facilitators. Statistical differences in measures comparing pre and post-intervention were assessed using paired t-tests and Cochran's-Q tests.

Results

The KE sessions reached 34 NH team staff (5 GP, 4 pharmacists, 6 heads of care unit and 19 staff nurses). Forty-four residents participated in the study and were followed for a mean of 104 days. The total number of regular medications was 372 pre and 327 post-intervention. The mean number of regular medications per resident was 7.86 pre and 6.81 post-intervention. The odds ratios estimating the risks of using any regular medication or a "sometimes appropriate" medication post-intervention were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.94), respectively.

Conclusion

A simple KE intervention using a medication review guidance tool categorizing medications as being either "generally", "sometimes" or "exceptionally" appropriate in severe dementia was well received and accompanied by an overall reduction in medication use by NH residents with severe dementia. Levels of agitation were unaffected and there was no clinically significant changes in levels of pain. Staff feedback provided opportunities to improve the intervention.

SUBMITTER: Wilchesky M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6123948 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:OBJECTIVES:To compare the risk of major medical events in nursing home residents newly initiated on conventional or atypical antipsychotic medications (APMs). DESIGN:Cohort study, using linked Medicaid, Medicare, Minimum Data Set, and Online Survey Certification and Reporting data. Propensity score-adjusted proportional hazards models were used to compare risks for medical events at a class and individual drug level. SETTING:Nursing homes in 45 U.S. states. PARTICIPANTS:Eighty-three thousand nine hundred fifty-nine Medicaid-eligible residents aged 65 and older who initiated APM treatment after nursing home admission in 2001 to 2005. MEASUREMENTS:Hospitalization for myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, serious bacterial infections, and hip fracture within 180 days of treatment initiation. RESULTS:Risks of bacterial infections (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.49) and possibly myocardial infarction (HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.81-1.86) and hip fracture (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.95-1.76) were higher, and risks of cerebrovascular events (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.65-1.02) were lower in participants initiating conventional APMs than in those initiating atypical APMs. Little variation existed between individual atypical APMs, except for a somewhat lower risk of cerebrovascular events with olanzapine (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.81-1.02) and quetiapine (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-1.02) and a lower risk of bacterial infections (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73-0.94) and possibly a higher risk of hip fracture (HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.96-1.43) with quetiapine than with risperidone. Dose-response relationships were observed for all events (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19 for high vs low dose for all events combined). CONCLUSION:These associations underscore the importance of carefully selecting the specific APM and dose and monitoring their safety, especially in nursing home residents who have an array of medical illnesses and are undergoing complex medication regimens.

Project description:Antidepressant medications are the most common psychopharmacologic therapy used to treat depressed nursing home (NH) residents. Despite a significant increase in the rate of antidepressant prescribing over the past several decades, little is known about the effectiveness of these agents in the NH population.To conduct a systematic review of the literature to examine and compare the effectiveness of antidepressant medications for treating major depressive symptoms in elderly NH residents.The following databases were searched with searches completed prior to January 2011 and no language restriction: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINHAL, CENTRAL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. Additional studies were identified from citations in evidence-based guidelines and reviews as well as book chapters on geriatric depression and pharmacotherapy from several clinical references. Studies were included if they described a clinical trial that assessed the effectiveness of any currently-marketed antidepressant for adults aged 65 years or older, who resided in the NH, and were diagnosed by DSM criteria and/or standardized validated screening instruments with Major Depressive Disorder, minor depression, dysthymic disorder, or Depression in Alzheimer's disease.A total of eleven studies, including four randomized and seven non-randomized open-label trials, met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. It was not feasible to conduct a meta-analysis because the studies were heterogeneous in terms of study design, operational definitions of depression, participant characteristics, pharmacologic interventions, and outcome measures. Of the four randomized trials, two had a control group and did not demonstrate a statistically-significant benefit for antidepressant pharmacotherapy over placebo. While six of the seven non-randomized studies identified a response to an antidepressant, their results must be interpreted with caution as they lacked a comparison group.The limited amount of evidence from randomized and non-randomized open-label trials suggests that depressed NH residents have a modest response to antidepressant medications. Further research using rigorous study designs are needed to examine the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in depressed NH residents, and to determine the various facility, provider, and patient factors associated with response to treatment.