Factors Associated With Hospital Presentation of Self-Harm Among Older Canadians in Long-Term Care: A 12-Year Cohort Study

Conceptualizing Self-Harm through the Experiences of Psychogeriatric Experts

INTRODUCTION

Fewer studies thus far have focused on self-harm and its specific forms among older adults. Moreover, the limited available literature applies varying terminology. The categorization of self-harm used in younger populations may not be as appropriate for this population. This means that less is known about this phenomenon in older adults. The current study aimed to reduce this gap.

METHODS

Nine Flemish psychogeriatric experts participated in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Themes emerging from the interviews suggest that self-harm in older adults may also include distinct elements, such as the omission of certain behaviours and engagement in indirect self-harm to cause bodily harm. According to the experts, self-harm may be engaged in to cope with emotions, express life fatigue, hasten death, and communicate a cry for help.

DISCUSSION

Self-harm is prevalent in older adults, and some characteristics may be specific to self-harm in an older age group. These findings may enable clinicians to be more alert to self-harm in older adults and consequently prevent serious suicidal behaviour. More research is needed to further uncover this phenomenon.

Antidepressant use and risk of self-harm among people aged 40 years or older: A population-based cohort and self-controlled case series study

BACKGROUND

Studies on the association between antidepressants and self-harm in adults were mostly conducted over a decade ago and have inconsistent findings. We aimed to compare self-harm risks by antidepressant classes among people aged 40 years or older with depression.

METHODS

Individuals aged ≥40 years with depression who initiated antidepressant treatment between 2001 and 2015 were retrieved from the Hong Kong Clinical Data Analysis & Reporting system, and were followed up until December 31, 2016. We conducted self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of self-harm comparing the pre-exposure (90 days before the first antidepressant use), index exposure (the first antidepressant use), and subsequent exposure (subsequent antidepressant use) periods to nonexposed periods. We applied Cox proportional hazard regressions to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of self-harm comparing five antidepressant classes (tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs [TCAs], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants [NaSSAs], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], and others).

FINDINGS

A total of 48,724 individuals were identified. SCCS analyses (N = 3,846) found that the increased self-harm risk occurred during the pre-exposure (IRR: 22.24; 95% CI, 20.25-24.42), index exposure (7.03; 6.34-7.80), and subsequent exposure periods (2.47; 2.18-2.79) compared to the unexposed period. Cohort analyses (N = 48,724) found an association of higher self-harm risks in short-term (one year) for NaSSAs vs. TCAs (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.53-2.96), SNRIs vs. TCAs (1.64; 1.01-2.68), and NaSSAs vs. SSRIs (1.75; 1.29-2.36) in the 40-64 years group. The higher risk remained significant in long-term (> one year) for NaSSAs vs. TCAs (1.55; 1.26-1.91) and NaSSAs vs. SSRIs (1.53; 1.26-1.87). In the 65+ group, only short-term differences were observed (SSRIs vs. TCAs [1.31; 1.03-1.66], SNRIs vs. SSRIs [0.44; 0.22-0.87], and SNRIs vs. NaSSAs [0.43; 0.21-0.87]).

INTERPRETATION

Within-person comparisons did not suggest that antidepressant exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of self-harm in people with depression. Between-person comparisons revealed differences in self-harm risks between certain pairs of antidepressant classes. These findings may inform clinicians' benefit-risk assessments when prescribing antidepressants.

FUNDING

Nil.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Analgesic Use and Appropriateness in Long-Term Care Facilities

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness of interventions to improve analgesic use and appropriateness in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to June 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled prospective interventions that included analgesic optimization, and reported postintervention change in analgesic use or appropriateness in LTCFs were included.

METHODS

Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 review authors.

RESULTS

Eight cluster RCTs, 2 controlled, and 6 uncontrolled studies comprising 9056 residents across 9 countries were included. The 16 interventions included education (n = 13), decision support (n = 7), system modifications (n = 6), and/or medication review (n = 3). Six interventions changed analgesic use or appropriateness, all of which included prescribers, 5 involved multidisciplinary collaboration, and 5 included a component of education. Education alone changed analgesic use and appropriateness in 1 study. Decision support was effective when combined with education in 3 interventions. Overall, 13 studies reported analgesic optimization as part of pain management interventions and 3 studies focused on medication optimization. Two pain management interventions reduced the percentage of residents reporting pain not receiving analgesics by 50% to 60% (P = .03 and P < .001, respectively), and 1 improved analgesic appropriateness (P = .03). One reduced nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (P < .001) and another resulted in 3-fold higher odds of opioid prescription in advanced dementia [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-8.7]. One medication optimization intervention reduced NSAID prescription (P = .036), and another reduced as-needed opioid (95% CI 8.6-13.8) and NSAID prescription (95% CI 1.6-4.2).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Interventions involving prescribers and enhanced roles for pharmacists and nurses, with a component of education, are most effective at changing analgesic use or appropriateness. Interventions combining education and decision support are also promising. Medication review interventions can change analgesic prescription, although there is currently minimal evidence in relation to possible corresponding improvements in resident-related outcomes.

Linking the Scores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-min and the interRAI Cognitive Performance Scale in Older Adults With Mild Physical or Cognitive Impairment

Background: Bridging scores generated from different cognitive assessment tools is necessary to efficiently track changes in cognition across the continuum of care. This study linked scores from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-5 min (MoCA 5-min) to the interRAI cognitive Performance Scale (CPS), commonly adopted tools in clinical and long-term care settings, respectively. Methods: We included individual-level data from persons who participated in a home- and community-based care program for older people with mild impairment in Hong Kong. The program used the interRAI-Check Up instrument for needs assessment and service matching between 2017 and 2020. Each participant's cognitive performance was assessed using CPS, CPS Version 2 (CPS2), and MoCA 5-min. We performed equipercentile linking with bivariate log-linear smoothing to establish equivalent scores between the two scales. Results: 3,543 participants had valid data on both scales; 66% were female and their average age was 78.9 years (SD = 8.2). The mean scores for MoCA 5-min, CPS, and CPS2 were 18.5 (SD = 5.9), 0.7 (SD = 0.7), and 1.3 (SD = 1.1), respectively. A CPS or CPS2 score of 0 (intact cognition) corresponds to MoCA 5-min scores of 24 and 25, respectively. At the higher end, a CPS score of 3 (moderately impaired) and a CPS2 score of 5 (moderately impaired Level-2) corresponded to MoCA 5-min scores of 0 and 1, respectively. The linking functions revealed the floor and ceiling effects that exist for the different scales, with CPS and CPS2 measuring more-severe cognitive impairment while the MoCA 5-min was better suited to measure mild impairment. Conclusions: We provided score conversions between MoCA 5-min and CPS/CPS2 within a large cohort of Hong Kong older adults with mild physical or cognitive impairment. This enabled continuity in repeated assessment with different tools and improved comparability of cognitive scores generated from different tools from diverse populations and research cohorts.