Search

Older adults are frequently prescribed medications with sedative effects, which are associated with numerous adverse consequences. However, the prevalence and longitudinal associations of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has not been explored to date. Our objective was to assess the prevalence of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate AD and examine the longitudinal association between sedative medication use and adverse events (AEs). The association between baseline sedative load (SL) and AEs, unscheduled healthcare utilisation, delirium and falls was assessed in older adults with mild–moderate AD over 18 months using secondary analysis of NILVAD trial data (collected from 2014 to 2016). Baseline medication use was assessed, and the SL model was applied to each participant’s medication individually. The SL model classifies medications into one of four categories: (1) primary sedatives, (2) medications with a sedating component or prominent side effect, (3) medications with sedation as a potential adverse reaction and (4) all other medications with no known sedative side effects. Medications in group 1 were assigned an SL score of 2, those in group 2 were assigned an SL score of 1, and those in categories 3 and 4 an SL score of 0. SL scores for each medication participants were taking were summed and the total SL calculated as an arithmetic sum of individual medications score. A total SL score ≥ 3 was classed as high. Statistical analysis was conducted using Poisson regression and mixed-effects linear regression, with adjustment for important clinical covariates. We also assessed the impact of SL on dementia progression and cognitive decline. Over half (55.7% [284/510]) of those with mild–moderate AD (age 72.8 ± 8.3 years, 61.9% female) were prescribed a regular medication with sedation as a primary effect or prominent side effect, with 22.2% (113/510) having a high SL (≥ 3). The most common medications contributing to SL were antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics and hypnotics. Over 18 months, increasing baseline SL was associated with incident AEs (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.19; p < 0.001), serious AEs (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11–1.36; p < 0.001) and unscheduled general practitioner visits (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13–1.34; p < 0.001). Further, increasing SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident delirium (IRR 1.30; 95% CI 1.11–1.53; p < 0.001) and falls (IRR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03–1.42; p = 0.02). Associations persisted after robust covariate adjustment. SL was not associated with accelerated cognitive decline or AD progression. In the current study, over half of older adults with mild–moderate AD were prescribed at least one drug with a sedative effect, and a significant minority had a high SL. Increasing baseline SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident AEs, delirium and falls, highlighting the need for optimal prescribing in this potentially vulnerable cohort.

The aim of this study was to validate the 8-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-8) against the 20-item version (CES-D-20) in a large sample of community-dwelling older people. Scales were compared for correlation and internal consistency. The ideal cut-off score for the CES-D-8 was determined by comparing scores ranging from 7 to 12 on the CES-D-8 to CES-D-20. 8033 participants were included. The Spearman co-efficient between the scales was 0.8980 indicating high degree of correlation. At a score of 9/24, the sensitivity and specificity of the CES-D-8 were 98 and 83%, respectively. The Cohen’s κ for a score of 9 was 0.7855, indicating strong agreement and the ROC area was 0.88. When compared to the CES-D-20, the CES-D-8 is a valid and reliable measure of depressive symptoms in community-dwelling older people, and a score of 9 can be used to identify those with clinically significant symptoms.

Background: Admission to an acute hospital can be distressing and disorientating for a person with dementia, and is associated with decline in cognitive and functional ability. The objective of this audit was to assess the quality of dementia care in acute hospitals in the Republic of Ireland. Methods: Across all 35 acute public hospitals, data was collected on care from admission through discharge using a retrospective chart review (n = 660), hospital organisation interview with senior management (n = 35), and ward level organisation interview with ward managers (n = 76). Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of dementia, and a length of stay greater than 5 days. Results: Most patients received physical assessments, including mobility (89 %), continence (84 %) and pressure sore risk (87 %); however assessment of pain (75 %), and particularly functioning (36 %) was poor. Assessment for cognition (43 %) and delirium (30 %) was inadequate. Most wards have access at least 5 days per week to Liaison Psychiatry (93 %), Geriatric Medicine (84 %), Occupational Therapy (79 %), Speech & Language (81 %), Physiotherapy (99 %), and Palliative Care (89 %) Access to Psychology (9 %), Social Work (53 %), and Continence services (34 %) is limited. Dementia awareness training is provided on induction in only 2 hospitals, and almost half of hospitals did not offer dementia training to doctors (45 %) or nurses (48 %) in the previous 12 months. Staff cover could not be provided on 62 % of wards for attending dementia training. Most wards (84 %) had no dementia champion to guide best practice in care. Discharge planning was not initiated within 24 h of admission in 72 % of cases, less than 40 % had a single plan for discharge recorded, and 33 % of carers received no needs assessment prior to discharge. Length of stay was significantly greater for new discharges to residential care (p