Multidisciplinary perspectives on medication-related decision-making for people with advanced dementia living in long-term care: a critical incident analysis

Geographic Variation of Antidementia and Antipsychotic Medication Use Among US Nursing Home Residents With Dementia

BACKGROUND

Several antidementia medications have been approved for symptomatic treatment of cognitive and functional impairment due to Alzheimer disease. Antipsychotics are often prescribed off-label for behavioral symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the basis for regional variation in antidementia and antipsychotic medication use.

SETTING

US nursing homes (n=9735), hospital referral regions (HRR; n=289).

SUBJECTS

Long-stay residents with dementia (n=273,004).

METHODS

Using 2018 Minimum Data Set 3.0 linked to Medicare data, facility information, and Dartmouth Atlas files, we calculated prevalence of use and separate multilevel logistic models [outcomes: memantine, cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI), antipsychotic use] estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs for resident, facility, and HRR characteristics. We then fit a series of cross-classified multilevel logistic models to estimate the proportional change in cluster variance (PCV).

RESULTS

Overall, 20.9% used antipsychotics, 16.1% used memantine, and 23.3% used ChEIs. For antipsychotics, facility factors [eg, use of physical restraints (aOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.11) or poor staffing ratings (aOR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.06-1.14)] were associated with more antipsychotic use. Nursing homes in HRRs with the highest health care utilization had greater antidementia drug use (aOR memantine: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.44-1.96). Resident/facility factors accounted for much regional variation in antipsychotics (PCV STATE : 27.80%; PCV HRR : 39.54%). For antidementia medications, HRR-level factors accounted for most regional variation (memantine PCV STATE : 37.44%; ChEI PCV STATE : 39.02%).

CONCLUSION

Regional variations exist in antipsychotic and antidementia medication use among nursing home residents with dementia suggesting the need for evidence-based protocols to guide the use of these medications.

Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for high-quality palliative care (PC) for persons with dementia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify IPC approaches in palliative dementia care and explore the elements constituting these approaches. We performed a search in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO using the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' manual and PRISMA guidelines, and conducted content analysis of the included articles. In total, 28 articles were included, which described 16 IPC approaches in palliative dementia care. The content analysis revealed three overall elements of these approaches: 1) collaborative themes, 2) collaborative processes, and 3) resources facilitating collaboration. Frequently reported collaborative themes embraced pain management and providing care in the dying phase. These themes were addressed through intertwined collaborative processes including communication, coordination, assessing and monitoring, and reflecting and evaluating. To ensure optimal IPC in palliative dementia care, various resources were required, such as PC knowledge, skills to manage symptoms, skills to communicate with collaborators, and a facilitating environment. In conclusion, the identified IPC approaches in palliative dementia care involve diverse collaborating professionals who mainly manage symptoms, prepare for the dying phase and require material and immaterial resources to enable optimal IPC in palliative dementia care.

Antidementia Medication Use in Nursing Home Residents

BACKGROUND

Antidementia medication can provide symptomatic improvements in patients with Alzheimer's disease, but there is a lack of consensus guidance on when to start and stop treatment in the nursing home setting.

METHODS

We describe utilization patterns of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) and memantine for 3,50,197 newly admitted NH residents with dementia between 2011 and 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, pre-admission use of antidementia medications declined from 2011 to 2018 (ChEIs: 44.5% to 36.9%; memantine: 27.4% to 23.2%). Older age, use of a feeding tube, and greater functional dependency were associated with lower odds of ChEI initiation. Coronary artery disease, parenteral nutrition, severe aggressive behaviors, severe cognitive impairment, and high functional dependency were associated with discontinuation of ChEIs. Comparison of clinical factors related to anti-dementia drug treatment changes from pre to post NH admission in 2011 and 2018 revealed a change toward lower likelihood of initiation of treatment among residents with more functional dependency and those with indicators of more complex illness as well as a change toward higher likelihood of discontinuation in residents having 2 or more hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

These prescribing trends highlight the need for additional research on the effects of initiating and discontinuing antidementia medications in the NH to provide clear guidance for clinicians when making treatment decisions for individual residents.

Pharmacological treatments and medication-related problems in nursing homes in Catalonia: a multidisciplinary approach

Background: Aging correlates with increased frailty, multi-morbidity, and chronic diseases. Furthermore, treating the aged often entails polypharmacy to achieve optimal disease management, augmenting medication-related problems (MRPs). Few guidelines and tools address the problem of polypharmacy and MRPs, mainly within the institutionalized elderly population. Routine pharmacological review is needed among institutionalized patients. This pharmacological review may improve with a multidisciplinary approach of a collaboration of multiple health professionals. This study aimed to describe institutionalized patients, systematically review their medication plans, and then give recommendations and identify MRPs. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using data obtained from patients living in five nursing homes in the northern area of Barcelona, Spain. The inclusion criteria comprised institutionalized patients with public health coverage provided by the Health Department of Catalonia. A detailed description of the clinical characteristics, chronic diseases, pharmacological treatments, recommendations, incomplete data, and MRPs, such as potential drug-drug interactions, therapeutic duplications, contraindications, and drugs deemed inappropriate or of doubtful efficacy, was made. The clinical pharmacologist was the medical doctor specialist who acted as the coordinator of the multidisciplinary team and actively reviewed all the prescribed medications to make recommendations and detect MRPs. Results: A total of 483 patients were included. Patients had a mean age of 86.3 (SD 8.8) years, and 72.0% were female individuals. All patients had at least three health-related problems, with a mean of 17.4 (SD 5.6). All patients, except one, had a minimum of one prescription, with a mean of 8.22 drugs prescribed (SD 3.5) per patient. Recommendations were made for 82.4% of the patients. Of these recommendations, verification of adequate use was made for 69.3% and withdrawal of a drug for 49.5%. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a high prevalence of health-related problems and several prescribed drugs in nursing homes in Catalonia. Many recommendations were made, confirming the increased proportion of polypharmacy, MRPs, and the need for standardized interventions. A multidisciplinary team approach, including general practitioners, geriatric assessments, a clinical pharmacist, and a clinical pharmacologist, should address this problem.

Changes in Antidementia Medications upon Admission to the Nursing Home: Who Decides and Why? Results From a National Survey of Nursing Home Administrators

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about who is involved and what factors influence changes in antidementia medications for older adults living in nursing homes. The study sought to describe factors associated with initiation and discontinuation of antidementia medications in nursing home residents with dementia.

DESIGN

National survey of nursing homes with ≥30 beds; homes with dementia units were oversampled.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Nursing home administrators [eg, Directors of Nursing (DoNs)].

METHODS

In 2022, 1293 homes were surveyed (response rate: 26.6%, n = 340). Weighted analyses provided nationally representative results corrected for nonresponse (n = 14,455).

RESULTS

DoNs reported that people always/almost always involved in antidementia medication decisions included nursing home prescriber (84.4%), nursing staff (33.2%), family (23.4%), resident (13.8%), community primary care provider (12.1%), and dementia specialist (5.8%). DoNs reported that antidementia medications were much more likely to be initiated if residents (55.8%) and family members (53.2%) wanted antidementia medications, a dementia specialist was involved (51.9%), resident had aggressive behaviors (44.8%), resisted care (31.6%), or had severe physical/cognitive impairment (22.3%). DoNs reported that antidementia medications were much more likely to be discontinued with dementia specialist involvement (46.5%), progression to severe impairment (39.2%), hospice involvement (31.5%), <6 months' prognosis (28.5%), emergence of aggressive behaviors (25.2%), or resisting care (19.0%) and much less likely to be discontinued if residents (30.2%) and family (27.3%) were reluctant to discontinue. One in 6 homes reported that residents had no immediate family/caregivers usually or almost always/always.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

DoNs report that family/caregivers and dementia specialists have significant influence on antidementia medication decisions in nursing homes, but many residents lack their involvement. Real-world evidence on the risks and benefits of antidementia medications in nursing homes is needed to inform clinical guidance about appropriate use of antidementia medications in nursing homes.

Liaison psychiatry before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on hospital admissions. The clinical profiles of patients referred to liaison psychiatry teams (LPT) remained stable over the last few decades. We postulate changes in patient profiles due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

a total of 384 patients admitted to a tertiary care University Hospital in Madrid (Spain) and referred to LPTs were recruited. Patients referred 5 months before and after the first admission for COVID-19 were included. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were collected, and non-parametric hypothesis contrast tests were used to study possible differences between both periods.

RESULTS

patients referred during the pandemic were significantly older (U = 2.006; p = .045), most of them were admitted to medical hospitalization units (χ2 (2) = 5.962; p = 015), and with a different reason for admission. There was an increase in the rate of adjustment disorders (χ2 (1) =7.893; p = 005) and delirium (χ2 (1) =9.413; p = 002), as well as psychiatric comorbidity (χ2 (2) = 9.930; p = .007), and a reduction in the proportion of patients treated for substance misuse (χ2 (5) = 19.152; p = .002). The number of deaths increased significantly (χ2 (1) = 6.611; p = .010). In persons over 65 years inappropriate prescription was significantly lower (χ2 (1) = 8.200; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

the pandemic had an impact on the activity of the LPTs due to the change in the clinical profile and evolution of referred patients, maintaining standards of care that are reflected through prescription.

Appropriateness of Telemedicine Versus In-Person Care: A Qualitative Exploration of Psychiatrists' Decision Making

OBJECTIVE

With widespread adoption of telemedicine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, psychiatrists must determine which visits are best conducted via telemedicine versus in person. Although some telepsychiatry guidelines and best practices have been developed, the literature has not described how psychiatrists make decisions about offering different care modalities. The authors explored how psychiatrists decide whether telemedicine is appropriate for a given patient.

METHODS

From June 25 to August 4, 2021, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with 20 outpatient psychiatrists. The authors used a critical incident technique and clinical vignettes to identify conscious and unconscious factors that influence psychiatrists' decision to offer telemedicine. Using inductive thematic analysis, the authors analyzed interview data.

RESULTS

Psychiatrists perceived that most patients are good candidates for telemedicine visits in the context of hybrid care models. Patient preference and situational factors, such as access to private spaces, rather than any particular diagnosis or patient demographic characteristic, drove telemedicine versus in-person care. Psychiatrists described numerous factors affecting their decision to offer telemedicine, and they were driven to try telemedicine and adjust as needed to "meet patients where they are" and to improve engagement in care. Psychiatrists reported using telemedicine as a bargaining chip in negotiations with patients, leveraging the offer of telemedicine to improve treatment attendance and adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This detailed assessment of how psychiatrists choose different care modalities can inform clinical practice guidelines and reimbursement policies that often mandate in-person visits. The results show that psychiatrists did not perceive intermittent in-person visits as essential for high-quality care.

Implementation of eHealth to Support Assessment and Decision-making for Residents With Dementia in Long-term Care: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As dementia progresses, symptoms and concerns increase, causing considerable distress for the person and their caregiver. The integration of care between care homes and health care services is vital to meet increasing care needs and maintain quality of life. However, care home access to high-quality health care is inequitable. eHealth can facilitate this by supporting remote specialist input on care processes, such as clinical assessment and decision-making, and streamlining care on site. How to best implement eHealth in the care home setting is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to identify the key factors that influence the implementation of eHealth for people living with dementia in long-term care.

METHODS

A systematic search of Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL was conducted to identify studies published between 2000 and 2020. Studies were eligible if they focused on eHealth interventions to improve treatment and care assessment or decision-making for residents with dementia in care homes. Data were thematically analyzed and deductively mapped onto the 6 constructs of the adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were included, focusing on a variety of eHealth interventions, including remote video consultations and clinical decision support tools. Key factors that influenced eHealth implementation were identified across all 6 constructs of the CFIR. Most concerned the inner setting construct on requirements for implementation in the care home, such as providing a conducive learning climate, engaged leadership, and sufficient training and resources. A total of 4 novel subconstructs were identified to inform the implementation requirements to meet resident needs and engage end users.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing eHealth in care homes for people with dementia is multifactorial and complex, involving interaction between residents, staff, and organizations. It requires an emphasis on the needs of residents and the engagement of end users in the implementation process. A novel conceptual model of the key factors was developed and translated into 18 practical recommendations on the implementation of eHealth in long-term care to guide implementers or innovators in care homes. Successful implementation of eHealth is required to maximize uptake and drive improvements in integrated health and social care.

Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.

INTERVENTION

The Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.

METHODS

This mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.

RESULTS

We recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.

IMPLICATIONS

ADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.

REGISTRATION

NLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.