A missed opportunity to improve practice around the use of restraints and consent in residential aged care: Limitations of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019

Comparison of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with and without dementia receiving residential medication management reviews

OBJECTIVES

Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's χ2 tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia.

RESULTS

Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, p < .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22-1.41, p < .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73-2.04, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.

'Vulnerable Monsters': Constructions of Dementia in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care

This paper argues that while regulatory frameworks in aged care authorise restraints to protect vulnerable persons living with dementia from harm, they also serve as normalising practices to control challenging monstrous Others. This argument emerges out of an observed unease in aged care discourse where older people living with dementia are described as 'vulnerable', while dementia behaviours are described as 'challenging'. Using narrative analysis on a case study from the Final Report of the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (RCAC), this paper investigates how the RCAC (re)produced constructions of persons with dementia as 'vulnerable monsters'. Drawing upon monstrous theory about 'unruly and leaky' bodies, extracts from the case study reveal how the RCAC repeated and reinforced monstrous constructions of dementia. Dementia behaviours, particularly 'wandering', were constructed through a dehumanising crisis frame that produced 'challenging' bodies and legitimised 'last resort' normalising practices, such as physical and chemical restraints. In failing to resist monstrous constructions of dementia behaviours, the RCAC accepted and authorised a regime of scaled responses leading to restrictive practices for control of challenging bodies in aged care. Although dementia care and restrictive practices received substantial attention in the RCAC, this paper reveals a missed opportunity for deeper review of institutionalised use of restraints that has relevance for ongoing reform of Australian aged care following conclusion of the RCAC.

Single-site employment (multiple jobholding) in residential aged care: A response to COVID-19 with wider workforce lessons

Objective

This study aimed to capture stakeholder views and issues arising from the implementation of the innovative single‐site employment guiding principles (SSE‐GP) that the Australian Government, in consultation with the sector, introduced into hot spot residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in July 2020 in response to COVID‐19.

Methods

Interviews with 74 stakeholders around Australia were conducted in October–November 2020. Provider interviews included employees and managerial and human resources staff in profit and non‐profit services who did, and did not, have COVID‐19 outbreaks. Sector interviews included representatives from peak bodies, unions, government, academics, advocates, labour hire and registered training organisations.

Results

There was broad but not total agreement on SSE‐GP's effectiveness. Beyond specific SSE‐GP feedback, six strategic workforce issues were identified. The quality of resident care was mixed, sometimes improved and sometimes diminished. The extent of employees' multiple jobholding surprised many providers, and rostering and unplanned absenteeism are a substantial strain for both providers and employees. Innovative work practices are often difficult for smaller providers lacking employment relations specialists. Future SSE‐GP is seen by larger providers as voluntary and organisation‐ rather than facility‐specific, and unions saw only mandated SSE‐GP as appropriate for future outbreaks. Last, all staff, management and executives had additional stress that placed their well‐being at risk.

Conclusions

Although SSE‐GP revealed new and existing weaknesses in the Australian RACF workforce, the broad industry consultation and collaboration demonstrated that the sector can meet COVID‐19's urgent and complex challenges. The experience provided lessons for further workforce challenges that remain to be addressed.

Human Rights and Empowerment in Aged Care: Restraint, Consent and Dying with Dignity

The aged care system in Australia is in crisis and people living with dementia are especially vulnerable to breaches of human rights to autonomy, dignity, respect, and equitable access to the highest quality of health care including meeting needs on account of disability. To be powerful advocates for themselves and others, people with dementia and the wider community with vested interests in quality aged care must be informed about their rights and what should be expected from the system. Prior to the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Empowered Project was established to empower and raise awareness amongst people with dementia and their families about changed behaviours, chemical restraint, consent, end of life care, and security of tenure. A primary care-embedded health media campaign and national seminar tour were undertaken to meet the project aims of awareness-raising and empowerment, based on 10 Essential Facts about changed behaviours and rights for people with dementia, established as part of the project. Knowledge translation was assessed to examine the need and potential benefit of such seminars. We demonstrated that this brief educational engagement improved community knowledge of these issues and provided attendees with the information and confidence to question the nature and quality of care provision. With the completion of the Royal Commission and corresponding recommendations with government, we believe the community is ready to be an active player in reframing Australia’s aged care system with a human rights approach.

Australia's problem with obtaining consent for psychotropic use in older people

Frequent use of psychotropic medicines in people with dementia is a significant concern globally, doing this without informed consent is a violation of human rights, ethics and law. Capacity Australia piloted an intervention to address several hypothetical barriers to obtaining consent for psychotropic use in aged care and has developed a suite of resources to improve rights and health literacy for clinicians, patients and community alike.

Essential oils for agitation in dementia [rELOAD]: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot feasibility trial

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend non-pharmacological interventions as the first line of treatment for agitation in dementia. One intervention that shows some promise as a treatment for agitation is essential oils. The objective of this study was to provide preliminary evidence of the effectiveness and feasibility of using topically-administered, individualized essential oil preparations for the alleviation of agitation in persons with dementia.

Methods

We conducted a 10-week pragmatic, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot feasibility trial to compare the effectiveness of topically-administered, individualized essential oil preparations to control (placebo) preparations. Outcomes included frequency and severity of agitation, quality of life, frequency of antipsychotic medication use and physical restraint, incidence of adverse events, and trial feasibility. Participants with dementia and clinically significant agitation were recruited from five residential aged-care facilities across regional South Australia.

Results

Thirty-eight participants were randomized from five sites. Accounting for random effects, we found statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS) aberrant vocalization sub score, Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) verbally agitated sub score and CMAI total score at week 4, but not at weeks 8 (post-intervention) or 10 (follow-up). No significant time-group interactions were observed for other PAS/CMAI scores or sub scores, quality of life - Alzheimer's disease total score, or frequency of physical restraint or as-needed antipsychotic medication. No adverse events were reported in any group.

Conclusions

The study findings highlight some promising effects of topically-administered, individualized essential oil preparations for agitation in dementia, and indicate that a large multi-center, cluster-randomized controlled trial of this treatment is feasible.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry [ACTRN12617001159347].

A missed opportunity to improve practice around the use of restraints and consent in residential aged care: Limitations of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019

Objective

To explore the meaning and potential role of new Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, (Principles) which amend Quality of Care Principles 2014 in improving practice around physical and chemical restraint.

Methods

We examined both Principles and accompanying Explanatory Statement in light of best practices around consent and use of chemical and physical restraint.

Results

The chemical restraint definition is problematic by exclusion of medications for treating mental disorders, physical illness or physical conditions, which is not considered restraint. Inexplicably, physical restraint requirements are more rigorous than chemical restraint requirements, where assessment is optional, and consent sometimes obtained, after use, and from the person's “representative,” rather than the person first, followed by their proxy decision‐maker.

Conclusions

Although a start in promoting best practice around physical restraint, the Principles do not address the status quo of poor practice around chemical restraint and may instead codify it.