Reducing Sedative-Hypnotics Among Hospitalized Patients: a Multi-centered Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedative-hypnotics are frequently prescribed for insomnia in hospital but are associated with preventable harms. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to examine whether a sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle decreases the rate of sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalized patients, who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. This interrupted time series study occurred between May 2016 and January 2019. Control data for 1 year prior to implementation and intervention data for at least 16 months were collected. The study occurred on 7 inpatient wards (general medicine, cardiology, nephrology, general surgery, and cardiovascular surgery wards) across 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. INTERVENTION: Participating wards implemented a sedative-hypnotic reduction bundle (i.e., order set changes, audit-feedback, pharmacist-enabled medication reviews, sleep hygiene, daily sleep huddles, and staff/patient/family education) aimed to reduce in-hospital sedative-hypnotic initiation for insomnia in patients who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. Each inpatient ward adapted the bundle prior to sustaining the intervention for a minimum of 16 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sedative-hypnotic-naïve inpatients newly prescribed a sedative-hypnotic for sleep in hospital. Secondary measures include prescribing rates of other sedating medications, fall rates, length of stay, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: We included 8,970 patient discharges in the control period and 10,120 in the intervention period. Adjusted sedative-hypnotic prescriptions among naïve patients decreased from 15.48% (95% CI: 6.09-19.42) to 9.08% (p<0.001) (adjusted OR 0.814; 95% CI: 0.667-0.993, p=0.042). Unchanged secondary outcomes included mortality (adjusted OR 1.089; 95% CI: 0.786-1.508, p=0.608), falls (adjusted rate ratio 0.819; 95% CI: 0.625-1.073, p=0.148), or other sedating drug prescriptions (adjusted OR 1.046; 95% CI: 0.873-1.252, p=0.627). CONCLUSIONS: A sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle implemented across 5 hospitals was associated with a sustained reduction in sedative-hypnotic prescriptions.

Reducing unnecessary sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalised older adults.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics (BSH) have numerous adverse effects that can lead to negative outcomes, particularly in vulnerable hospitalised older adults. At our institution, over 15% of hospitalised older adults are prescribed sedative-hypnotics inappropriately. Of these prescriptions, 87% occurred at night to treat insomnia and almost 20% came from standard admission order sets. METHODS: We conducted a time-series study from January 2015 to August 2016 among medical and cardiology inpatients following the implementation in August 2015 of a sedative reduction bundle (education, removal of BSH from available admission order sets and non-pharmacological strategies to improve sleep). Preintervention period was January-July 2015 and postintervention period was August 2015-August 2016. A surgical ward served as control. Primary outcome was the proportion of BSH-naive (not on BSH prior to admission) patients 65 years or older discharged from medical and cardiology wards who were prescribed any new BSH for sleep in hospital. Data were analysed on statistical process control (SPC) p-charts with upper and lower limits set at 3δ using standard rules. Secondary measures included Patient-reported Median Sleep Quality scores and rates of fall and sedating drug prescriptions that may be used for sleep (dimenhydrinate). RESULTS: During the study period, there were 5805 and 1115 discharges from the intervention and control units, respectively. From the mean baseline BSH prescription rate of 15.8%, the postintervention period saw an absolute reduction of 8.0% (95% CI 5.6% to 10.3%; p<0.001). Adjusted for temporal trends, the intervention produced a 5.3% absolute reduction in the proportion of patients newly prescribed BSH (95% CI 5.6% to 10.3%; p=0.002). BSH prescription rates remained stable on the control ward. Patient-reported measure of sleep quality, falls and use of other sedating medications remained unchanged throughout the study duration. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive intervention bundle was associated with a reduction in inappropriate BSH prescriptions among older inpatients.

Why substitute decision makers provide or decline consent for ICU research studies: a questionnaire study.

PURPOSE: Consent for research participation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often obtained from a substitute decision maker (SDM). In this study we explored SDMs' reasons for declining or providing consent for research studies for critically ill adult family members. METHODS: Two questionnaires were developed, one directed at SDMs who agreed to have their relative participate in a research study (AGREE group), and another for SDMs who declined participation (DECLINE group). The questionnaires explored SDMs' opinions about research in general, timing of research approach, the informed consent process, and reasons for agreeing or declining participation. RESULTS: Ninety-six SDMs completed the questionnaire (68 AGREE, 27 DECLINE). There were no differences between AGREE and DECLINE groups with respect to SDM demographics, perceived severity of illness of the patient, or the research study approach. The most common reasons for providing consent were potential for research to help others (91%), research is important for medical progress (88%), and trust in the medical team (87%). The most common reasons for declining consent were SDM was too anxious to consider research (67%), fear that patient would receive experimental treatment (37%), and concern about risks of the study (33%). CONCLUSIONS: SDMs who agree to have a relative participate in an ICU research study are motivated by the potential benefit to the patient and altruism. SDMs who decline research participation, while not generally opposed to research, are fearful of study-related harm or discomfort for the patient, and are too anxious to consider a research study at that time.

Recall of intensive care unit stay in patients managed with a sedation protocol or a sedation protocol with daily sedative interruption: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Analgesics and sedatives are integral for the relief of pain and anxiety in critically ill patients. However, these agents may contribute to amnesia for intensive care unit (ICU) events; which has been associated with development of posttraumatic stress disorder. Drug administration strategies that minimize sedative use have been associated with less amnesia. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate recall of ICU stay in patients managed with 2 sedation strategies: a sedation protocol or a combination of sedation protocol and daily sedative/analgesic interruption. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered on day 3 following ICU discharge to evaluate patients' recollections of pain, anxiety, fear, and sleep, as well as memories for specific ICU procedures. Participants were ICU survivors who had been enrolled in SLEAP - a randomized pilot trial comparing two sedation strategies, at 3 university-affiliated medical/surgical ICUs. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients who regained orientation within 72 hours of ICU discharge completed the questionnaire. More than 50% of patients recalled experiencing pain, anxiety, and fear to a moderate or extreme extent; and 57% reported inadequate sleep while in the ICU. Of the 21 patients, 48%, 33%, and 29% had no memories of endotracheal tube suctioning, being on a "breathing machine," and being bathed, respectively. CONCLUSION: A notable percentage of patients discharged from the ICU report moderate to extreme pain, anxiety, and fear, and inability to sleep during their ICU stay; and 29% to 48% have no recall of specific ICU events.