Effect of a geriatric intervention aiming to improve polypharmacy in nursing homes

Individualized Medication Review in Older People with Multimorbidity: A Comparative Analysis between Patients Living at Home and in a Nursing Home

(1) Background: aging is associated with complex and dynamic changes leading to multimorbidity and, therefore, polypharmacy. A periodic medication review (MR) in frail older people leads to optimizing medication use. The aims of the study were to perform a comparative analysis of the impact of place of residence (own home versus nursing home) in a cohort of older patients on the characteristics of the baseline therapeutic plan and characteristics of the therapeutic plan after an MR; (2) Methods: Study with paired pre- and post-MR data based on person-centred prescription, with a follow-up assessment at three months. Patients who lived either in their own home or in a nursing home were recruited. We selected patients of 65 years or more with multimorbidity whose General Practitioner identified difficulties with the prescription management and the need for an MR. Each patient’s treatment was analysed by applying the Patient-Centred Prescription (PCP) model; (3) Results: 428 patients. 90% presented at least one inappropriate prescription (IP) in both settings. In nursing homes, a higher number of implemented optimization proposals was detected (81.6% versus 65.7% (p < 0.001)). After the MR, nursing-home patients had a greater decrease in their mean number of medications, polypharmacy prevalence, therapeutic complexity, and monthly drug expenditure (p < 0.001); (4) Conclusions: PCP model detected a high number of IP in both settings. However, after an individualized MR, nursing-home patients presented a greater decrease in some pharmacological parameters related to adverse events, such as polypharmacy and therapeutic complexity, compared to those living at home. Nursing homes may be regarded as a highly suitable scenario to carry out a periodic MR, due to its high prevalence of frail people and its feasibility to apply the recommendations of an MR. Prospective studies with a robust design should be performed to demonstrate this quasi-experimental study along with a longitudinal follow-up on clinical outcomes.

The Effect of the NorGeP–NH on Quality of Life and Drug Prescriptions in Norwegian Nursing Homes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The effect of the Norwegian General Practice–Nursing Home (NorGeP–NH) criteria has never been tested on clinical outcomes in nursing home (NH) residents. We performed a cluster-randomized trial in Norwegian NHs and tested the effect of NorGeP–NH on QoL (primary outcome), medication prescriptions, and physical and mental health (secondary outcomes) for the enrolled residents; Methods: Fourteen NHs were randomized into intervention NHs (iNHs) and control NHs (cNHs). After baseline data collection, physicians performed NorGeP–NH on the enrolled residents. We assessed the difference between cNHs and iNHs in the change in primary outcome from baseline to 12 weeks and secondary outcomes from baseline to eight and 12 weeks by linear mixed models; Results: One hundred and eight residents (13 lost to follow-up) and 109 residents (nine lost to follow-up) were randomized to iNHs and cNHs, respectively. Difference in change in QoL at 12 weeks between cNHs and iNHs was not statistically significant (mean (95% CI)): −1.51 (−3.30; 0.28), p = 0.101). We found no significant change in drug prescriptions over time. Difference in depression scores between cNHs and iNHs was statistically significant after 12 weeks. Conclusions: Our intervention did not affect QoL or drug prescriptions, but reduced depression scores in the iNHs. NorGeP–NH may be a useful tool, but its effect on clinical outcomes may be scarce in NH residents. Further studies about the effectiveness of NorGeP–NH in other healthcare contexts and settings are recommended.

Do prescription rates of psychotropic drugs change over three years from nursing home admission?

BACKGROUND

In this longitudinal study, we describe how psychotropic drugs (PTDs) are prescribed in nursing home (NH) patients from admission and over a 3-year period, to understand which clinical and environmental factors are associated with PTD prescription.

METHODS

We used data from the Resource Use and Disease Course in Dementia - Nursing Home (REDIC-NH) study, examining physical and mental health, dementia, and PTD prescription during a 3-year period from admission to a NH. Data were collected every six months. At baseline, we included 696 participants from 47 Norwegian NHs. We presented prevalence, incidence, and deprescribing rates of PTD prescriptions for each assessment point. We calculated the odds of receiving PTDs and used a generalized linear mixed model to analyze the variables associated with a change in odds throughout the 3-year period.

RESULTS

PTD prescriptions were frequent throughout the 3-year period. Antidepressants had the highest prescription rates (28.4%-42.2%). Every PTD category had the highest incidence rate between admission and six months, and antipsychotics had the highest values (49.4%). Deprescribing rates were comparable between assessment points. The odds of antipsychotic prescriptions were lower for older people (OR = 0.96, 95%CI:0.92-0.99, p = 0.023). People with more severe dementia had lower odds of being prescribed sedatives/hypnotics (OR = 0.89, 95%CI:0.85-0.94, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PTDs, particularly antidepressants, are widely prescribed over time to NH patients. Older patients are less likely to receive antipsychotics. A higher severity of dementia decreases the odds of being prescribed sedatives/hypnotics. Close attention should be paid to PTD prescriptions during long-term NH stay to avoid prolonged and excessive treatment with these types of drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920100 .

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

INTRODUCTION

One of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents.

METHODS

We conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer.

RESULTS

A total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory.

CONCLUSION

Many healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.