Dataset Information

Comparison of Medication Prescribing Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Nursing Home Residents in Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

COVID-19 has had devastating effects on the health and well-being of older adult residents and health care professionals in nursing homes. Uncertainty about the associated consequences of these adverse effects on the use of medications common to this care setting remains.

Objective

To examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and prescription medication changes among nursing home residents.

Design, setting, and participants

This population-based cohort study with an interrupted time-series analysis used linked health administrative data bases for residents of all nursing homes (N = 630) in Ontario, Canada. During the observation period, residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts. The first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017; the last observation week was September 20 to 26, 2020.

Exposures

Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 1, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Weekly proportion of residents dispensed antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, antibiotics, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Autoregressive integrated moving average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for level and slope changes in weekly medication use after the onset of the pandemic and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends.

Results

Across study years, the annual cohort size ranged from 75 850 to 76 549 residents (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [10.8] years; mean proportion of women, 68.9%). A significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents who were dispensed antipsychotics (parameter estimate [β] = 0.051; standard error [SE] = 0.010; P < .001), benzodiazepines (β = 0.026; SE = 0.003; P < .001), antidepressants (β = 0.046; SE = 0.013; P < .001), trazodone hydrochloride (β = 0.033; SE = 0.010; P < .001), anticonvulsants (β = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .03), and opioids (β = 0.038; SE = 0.007; P < .001) was observed. The absolute difference in observed vs estimated use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 0.48% (for anticonvulsants) to 1.52% (for antipsychotics). No significant level or slope changes were found for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors.

Conclusions and relevance

In this population-based cohort study, statistically significant increases in the use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although absolute differences were small. There were no significant changes for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Studies are needed to monitor whether changes in pharmacotherapy persist, regress, or accelerate during the course of the pandemic and how these changes affect resident-level outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Campitelli MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8329744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes (the Partnership) to decrease antipsychotic use and improve care for nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. We determined whether the extent of antipsychotic and other psychotropic medication prescribing in AL residents with dementia mirrored that of long-stay NH (LSNH) residents after the Partnership.MethodsUsing a 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with Part D, we conducted a retrospective cohort study including AL and LSNH residents with dementia. The monthly prevalence of psychotropic medication prescribing (antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedative-hypnotics, anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers, benzodiazepines, and antidementia medications) was examined. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to compare medication prescribing before (July 1, 2010-March 31, 2012) and after (April 1, 2012-December 31, 2017) the Partnership in both settings.ResultsWe identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. Antipsychotic prescribing declined over the study period in both settings. After the launch of the Partnership, the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing slowed in AL residents with dementia (slope change = 0.03 [95% CLs: 0.02, 0.04]) while the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing increased in LSNH residents with dementia (slope change = -0.12 [95% CLs: -0.16, -0.08]). Antidepressants were the most prevalent medication prescribed, anticonvulsant/mood stabilizer prescribing increased, and anxiolytic/sedative-hypnotic and antidementia medication prescribing declined.ConclusionsThe federal Partnership to reduce antipsychotic prescribing in NH residents did not appear to affect antipsychotic prescribing in AL residents with dementia. Given the increase in the prescribing of mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants that occurred after the launch of the Partnership, monitoring may be warranted for all psychotropic medications in AL and NH settings.

Project description:BackgroundStudies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that crowding in nursing homes is associated with high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections, but this effect has not been shown for other respiratory pathogens. We aimed to measure the association between crowding in nursing homes and outbreak-associated respiratory infection incidence and related mortality before the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. We identified, characterised, and selected nursing homes through the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care datasets. Nursing homes that were not funded by the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care and homes that closed before January, 2020 were excluded. Outcomes consisting of respiratory infection outbreaks were obtained from the Integrated Public Health Information System of Ontario. The crowding index equalled the mean number of residents per bedroom and bathroom. The primary outcomes were the incidence of outbreak-associated infections and mortality per 100 nursing home residents per year. We examined the incidence of infections and deaths as a function of the crowding index by use of negative binomial regression with adjustment for three home characteristics (ie, ownership, number of beds, and region) and nine mean resident characteristics (ie, age, female sex, dementia, diabetes, chronic heart failure, renal failure, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and activities of daily living score).FindingsBetween Sept 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2019, 5107 respiratory infection outbreaks in 588 nursing homes were recorded, of which 4921 (96·4%), involving 64 829 cases of respiratory infection and 1969 deaths, were included in this analysis. Nursing homes with a high crowding index had higher incidences of respiratory infection (26·4% vs 13·8%; adjusted rate ratio per one resident per room increase in crowding 1·89 [95% CI 1·64-2·17]) and mortality (0·8% vs 0·4%; 2·34 [1·88-2·92]) than did homes with a low crowding index.InterpretationRespiratory infection and mortality rates were higher in nursing homes with high crowding index than in homes with low crowding index, and the association was consistent across various respiratory pathogens. Decreasing crowding is an important safety target beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to help to promote resident wellbeing and decrease the transmission of prevalent respiratory pathogens.FundingNone.

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Secondary prevention medications are recommended for older adults after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about whether nursing home (NH) residents receive these medications. The objective was to evaluate new use of secondary prevention medications after AMI in NH residents who were previously nonusers and to evaluate what factors were associated with use. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort using linked national Minimum Data Set assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting records; and Medicare claims. SETTING:U.S. NHs. PARTICIPANTS:National cohort of 11,192 NH residents aged 65 and older who were hospitalized for an AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, had no beta-blocker or statin use for 4 months or longer before the hospitalization, and survived 14 days or more after NH readmission. MEASUREMENTS:The outcome was the number of secondary prevention medications initiated within 30 days of NH readmission. RESULTS:Thirty-seven percent of residents had no secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, 41% had 1 initiated, and 22% had 2 initiated. After covariate adjustment, fewer secondary prevention medications were used in older residents (proportional odds ratio (POR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.57 for ?95 vs 65-74); women (POR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.96);and those with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (POR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.98), functional impairment (dependent or totally dependent vs independent to limited assistance, POR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69-0.86), and cognitive impairment (moderate to severe vs no impairment, POR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70-0.89). CONCLUSION:More than one-third of older NH residents in the United States do not have any secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, with fewer medications initiated in older residents; women; and those with, DNR orders, poor physical function, and cognitive impairment. A lack of evidence about the safety and effectiveness of secondary preventions medications in the NH population and unmeasured person-centered goals of care are plausible explanations for these findings.

Project description:Background: Antipsychotics are commonly prescribed to people living with dementia in nursing home settings, despite strong guideline recommendations against their use except in limited circumstances. We aimed to transparently describe the development process for a complex intervention targeting appropriate requesting and prescribing of antipsychotics to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, by nurses and general practitioners (GPs) respectively. Methods: We report the development process for the 'Rationalising Antipsychotic Prescribing in Dementia' (RAPID) complex intervention, in accordance with the 'Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research' (GUIDED) checklist. The UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions guided our overall approach, incorporating evidence and theory into the intervention development process. To unpack the intervention development process in greater detail, we followed the Behaviour Change Wheel approach. Guided by our stakeholders, we conducted three sequential studies (systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis, primary qualitative study and expert consensus study), to inform the intervention development. Results: The RAPID complex intervention was developed in collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders, including people living with dementia and family carers, between 2015 and 2017. The finalised RAPID complex intervention was comprised of the following three components; 1) Education and training sessions with nursing home staff; 2) Academic detailing with GPs; 3) Introduction of an assessment tool to the nursing home. Conclusions: This paper describes the steps used by the researchers to develop a complex intervention targeting antipsychotic prescribing to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, according to the GUIDED checklist. We found that the GUIDED checklist provided a useful way of reporting all elements in a cohesive manner and complemented the other tools and frameworks used. Transparency in the intervention development processes can help in the translation of evidence into practice.

Project description:ImportanceNursing home residents have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Prevention recommendations emphasize frequent testing of health care personnel and residents, but additional strategies are needed.ObjectiveTo develop a reproducible index of nursing home crowding and determine whether crowding was associated with COVID-19 cases and mortality in the first months of the COVID-19 epidemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based retrospective cohort study included more than 78 000 residents across more than 600 nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and was conducted from March 29 to May 20, 2020.ExposuresThe nursing home crowding index equaled the mean number of residents per bedroom and bathroom.Main outcomes and measuresThe cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases confirmed by a validated nucleic acid amplification assay and mortality per 100 residents; the introduction of COVID-19 into a home (≥1 resident case) was a negative tracer.ResultsOf 623 homes in Ontario, we obtained complete information on 618 homes (99%) housing 78 607 residents (women, 54 160 [68.9%]; age ≥85 years, 42 919 [54.6%]). A total of 5218 residents (6.6%) developed COVID-19 infection, and 1452 (1.8%) died of COVID-19 infection as of May 20, 2020. COVID-19 infection was distributed unevenly across nursing homes; 4496 infections (86%) occurred in 63 homes (10%). The crowding index ranged across homes from 1.3 (mainly single-occupancy rooms) to 4.0 (exclusively quadruple occupancy rooms); 308 homes (50%) had a high crowding index (≥2). Incidence in high crowding index homes was 9.7% vs 4.5% in low crowding index homes (P < .001), while COVID-19 mortality was 2.7% vs 1.3%, respectively (P < .001). The likelihood of COVID-19 introduction did not differ (high = 31.3% vs low = 30.2%; P = .79). After adjustment for regional, nursing home, and resident covariates, the crowding index remained associated with an increased incidence of infection (relative risk [RR] = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.10-2.72) and mortality (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.99-2.87). A propensity score analysis yielded similar conclusions for infection (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.30-3.38) and mortality (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.09-3.08). Simulations suggested that converting all 4-bed rooms to 2-bed rooms would have averted 998 COVID-19 cases (19.1%) and 263 deaths (18.1%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of Canadian nursing homes, crowding was common and crowded homes were more likely to experience larger and deadlier COVID-19 outbreaks.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of psychotropic medications and their adverse effects in frail elderly has been debated extensively. However, recent data from European studies show that these drugs are still frequently prescribed in nursing home residents. In Austria, prevalence data are lacking. We aimed to determine the prevalence of psychotropic medication prescription in Austrian nursing homes and to explore characteristics associated with their prescription.MethodsCross-sectional study and association analysis in forty-eight out of 50 nursing homes with 1844 out of a total of 2005 residents in a defined urban-rural region in Austria. Prescribed medication was retrieved from residents' charts. Psychotropic medications were coded according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification 2005. Cluster-adjusted multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate institutional and residents' characteristics associated with prescription.ResultsResidents' mean age was 81; 73% of residents were female. Mean cluster-adjusted prevalence of residents with at least one psychotropic medication was 74.6% (95% confidence interval, CI, 72.0-77.2). A total of 45.9% (95% CI 42.7-49.1) had at least one prescription of an antipsychotic medication. Two third of all antipsychotic medications were prescribed for bedtime use only. Anxiolytics were prescribed in 22.2% (95% CI 20.0-24.5), hypnotics in 13.3% (95% CI 11.3-15.4), and antidepressants in 36.8% (95% CI 34.1-39.6) of residents. None of the institutional characteristics and only few residents' characteristics were significantly associated with psychotropic medication prescription. Permanent restlessness was positively associated with psychotropic medication prescription (AOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.79) whereas cognitive impairment was inversely associated (AOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88).ConclusionFrequency of psychotropic medication prescription is high in Austrian nursing homes compared to recent published data from other countries. Interventions should aim at reduction and optimisation of prescriptions.

Project description:BackgroundHospitalization of nursing home (NH) residents impose a significant healthcare burden. However, there is still a lack of information regarding the risk of hospitalization from inappropriate prescribing in NH residents. We aimed to estimate the nationwide prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use among NH residents using the Korean tool and 2019 Beers criteria and to assess their associations with hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits.MethodsWe included older adults aged 65 years or above who were admitted to NHs between July 2008 and December 2018 using national senior cohort database. The prevalence of PIM use based on the Korean medication review tool and Beers criteria on the date of admission to NH was estimated. And the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of polypharmacy, numbers of PIM, each PIM category for hospitalization/ED visits within 30 days of admission to NH was calculated using Cox proportional hazard model to show the association.ResultsAmong 20,306 NH residents, the average number of medications per person was 7.5 ± 4.7. A total of 89.3% and 67.9% of the NH residents had at least one PIM based on the Korean tool and 2019 Beers criteria, respectively. The risk of ED visits or hospitalization significantly increased with the number of PIMs based on the Korean tool (1-3: aHR = 1.24, CI 1.03-1.49; ≥4: aHR = 1.46, CI 1.20-1.79). Having four or more PIMs based on the Beers criteria increased the risk significantly (aHR = 1.30, CI 1.06-1.53) while using 1-3 PIMs was not significantly associated (aHR = 1.07, CI 0.97-1.19). Residents with any potential medication omission according to the Korean criteria, were at 23% higher risk of hospitalization or ED visits (aHR = 1.23, CI 1.07-1.40).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that PIMs, based on the Korean tool and Beers criteria, were prevalent among older adults living in NHs and the use of PIMs were associated with hospitalization or ED visits. The number of PIMs based on the Korean tool showed dose-response increase in the risk of hospitalization or ED visits.