Search

ObjectivesNursing homes are hit relatively hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dutch long-term care (LTC) organisations installed outbreak teams (OTs) to coordinate COVID-19 infection prevention and control. LTC organisations and relevant national policy organisations expressed the need to share experiences from these OTs that can be applied directly in COVID-19 policy. The aim of the ‘COVID-19 management in nursing homes by outbreak teams’ (MINUTES) study is to describe the challenges, responses and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch nursing homes. In this first article, we describe the MINUTES Study and present data characteristics.DesignThis large-scale multicentre study has a qualitative design using manifest content analysis. The participating organisations shared their OT minutes and other meeting documents on a weekly basis. Data from week 16 (April) to week 53 (December) 2020 included the first two waves of COVID-19.SettingNational study with 41 large Dutch LTC organisations.ParticipantsThe LTC organisations represented 563 nursing home locations and almost 43 000 residents.ResultsAt least 36 of the 41 organisations had one or more SARS-CoV-2 infections among their residents. Most OTs were composed of management, medical staff, support services staff, policy advisors and communication specialists. Topics that emerged from the documents were: crisis management, isolation of residents, personal protective equipment and hygiene, staff, residents’ well-being, visitor policies, testing and vaccination.ConclusionsOT meeting minutes are a valuable data source to monitor the impact of and responses to COVID-19 in nursing homes. Depending on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection and analysis will continue until November 2021. The results are used directly in national and organisational COVID-19 policy.

Elizabeth G Birkenhäger-Gillesse,1,2 Sarah IM Janus,1 Wilco P Achterberg,3 Sytse U Zuidema1 1Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2Laurens Care Centers, Division Long Stay, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 3Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Elizabeth G Birkenhäger-GillesseLaurens Care Centers, Division Long Stay, Pres. Rooseveltweg 22, Rotterdam, 3068 TR, the NetherlandsTel +31619699113Email b.birkenhager@laurens.nlPurpose: Does participating in a multicomponent intervention targeting caregivers change the prescription rates of psychotropic drugs of caregivers or the person with dementia (PWD) they live with and care for.Patients and Methods: Participants were 142 dyads of community-dwelling cohabiting caregivers and PWD randomized to intervention or control (care as usual). Participating caregivers received the intervention in a holiday accommodation over five days in groups of two to six dyads. During this time, caregivers attended 14 psychoeducational group sessions on relevant emotional, relational, practical, financial, and social changes related to living with PWD. These sessions were delivered by a psychologist, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, an elderly care physician, a dietician and a social worker and included combating social isolation, planning for the future, re-rolling, medical aspects of dementia, fitness, therapeutic use of facilities, nutrition and using community services. The design was a randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were compared 3 months after baseline. Drug use for both caregivers and PWD were reported as all psychotropic drug use and specified as antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic and hypnotic drug use based on Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classifications.Results: Compared to the control group, no significant difference was observed in psychotropic drug use by 3 months after baseline among caregivers (p 0.22 MD − 0.08 95% CI − 0.20– 0.05) or PWD (p 0.61, MD 0.04 95% − 0.12– 0.21) in the intervention group.Conclusion: A multicomponent course for caregivers living with PWD did not affect psychotropic drug use by either person. This may be explained by the low level of baseline drug use and the lack of the prescribing physician involvement in the present study. The low baseline drug use likely reflects selection bias for caregiver participants who were more inclined to use psychosocial interventions in preference to psychotropic medication, making them more likely to participate in caregiver training.Keywords: caregiver, dementia, psychotropic drugs, psychosocial intervention, training

Objectives Caregivers for people with dementia (PWD) have reported needing emotional and social support, improved coping strategies, and better information about the illness and available support services. In this study, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of an Australian multicomponent community-based training program that we adapted and implemented in a non-medical Dutch health care setting. Methods and design A randomized controlled trial was performed: 142 dyads of cohabiting caregivers and PwD were randomized to control (care as usual) or intervention (training program) groups and outcomes were compared. Programs lasted 1 week, comprised 14 sessions, and were delivered by specialist staff. We included 16 groups of two to six caregivers. The primary outcome was care-related quality of life (CarerQol-7D) at 3 months. The main secondary outcomes for caregivers were self-rated burden, health and mood symptoms, and for PwD were neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and agitation. Results No significant difference was observed for the primary outcome. However, caregivers experienced fewer role limitations due to physical function (adjusted mean difference, 13.04; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3.15-22.93), emotional function (13.52; 95%CI, 3.76-23.28), and pain reduction (9.43; 95%CI, 1.00-17.86). Positive outcomes identified by qualitative analysis included better acceptance and coping and improved knowledge of dementia and available community services and facilities. Conclusion Quantitative analysis showed that the multicomponent course did not affect care-related quality of life but did have a positive effect on experienced role limitations and pain. Qualitative analysis showed that the course met the needs of participating dyads.

Background: The more (inappropriate) drugs a patient uses, the higher the risk of drug related problems. To reduce these risks, medication reviews can be performed. Objective: To report changes in the prescribed number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs before and after performing a medication review in high-risk polypharmacy patients. A secondary objective was to study reasons for continuing potentially inappropriate drugs (PIDs). Setting Dutch community pharmacy and general medical practice. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal intervention study with a pre-test/post-test design and follow-up of 1 week and 3 months was performed. The study population consisted of 126 patients with polypharmacy and with additional risk for drug related problems that underwent a medication review in five community pharmacies. The medication review was performed by the pharmacist in close cooperation with the general practitioner of each corresponding patient. Main outcome measure: Number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs, and appropriateness of prescribed medicines. Results: The average number of drugs a patient used 1 day before the review was 8.7 (SD = 2.9), which decreased (p

Background: A typical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia have been tested in much larger trials than the older conventional drugs. The advantage of larger sample sizes is that negative findings become less likely and the effect estimates more precise. However, as sample sizes increase, the trials also get more expensive and time consuming while exposing more patients to drugs with unknown safety profiles. Moreover, a large sample size might yield a statistically significant effect that is not necessarily clinically relevant.Objective: To assess (1) the variation in sample size and sample size calculations of antipsychotic trials in dementia, (2) the size of reported treatment effects and related statistical significance, and (3) general study characteristics that might be related to sample size.Study Design and Setting: We performed a meta-epidemiological study of randomized trials that tested antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. The trials compared conventional or atypical antipsychotics with placebo or another antipsychotic. Two reviewers independently extracted sample size, sample size calculations, reported treatment effects with p-values, and general study characteristics (drug type, trial duration, type of funding). We calculated a reference sample size of 83 and 433 per study group for the placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials respectively.Results: We identified 33 placebo-controlled trials, and 18 head-to-head trials. Only 14 (42%) and 2 (11%), respectively, reported a sample size calculation. The average sample size per arm was 34 (range 6-179) in placebo-controlled trials testing conventional drugs, 107 (8-237) in such trials testing atypical drugs, and 104 (95-115) in such trials testing both drug types; it was 31 (10-88) in head-to-head trials. Thirteen out of 18 trials with sample sizes larger than required (72%) reported a statistically significant treatment effect, of which two (15%) were clinically relevant. None of the head-to-head trials reported a statistically significant treatment effect, even though some suggested non-inferiority. In placebo-controlled trials of atypical drugs, longer trial duration (>6 weeks) and commercial funding were associated with higher sample size.Conclusion: Sample size calculations were poorly reported in antipsychotic trials for dementia. Placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics showed large sample size fallacy while head-to-head trials were massively underpowered.