Pharmacological treatments for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia in long-term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medications are frequently prescribed for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) associated with dementia, although information on the efficacy and safety of medications for NPS specifically in long-term care (LTC) settings is limited. The objective of this study was to provide a current review of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for NPS in LTC. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing medications with either placebo or other interventions in LTC. Study quality was described using the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool. The efficacy of medications was evaluated using NPS symptom rating scales. Safety was evaluated through rates of trial withdrawals, trial withdrawals due to adverse events, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies met inclusion criteria. The most common medications evaluated in studies were atypical antipsychotics (N = 15), typical antipsychotics (N = 7), anticonvulsants (N = 4), and cholinesterase inhibitors (N = 3). Statistically significant improvements in NPS were noted in some studies evaluating risperidone, olanzapine, and single studies of aripiprazole, carbamazepine, estrogen, cyproterone, propranolol, and prazosin. Study quality was difficult to rate in many cases due to incomplete reporting of details. Some studies reported higher rates of trial withdrawals, adverse events, and mortality associated with medications. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is limited evidence to support the use of some atypical antipsychotics and other medications for NPS in LTC populations. However, the generally modest efficacy and risks of adverse events highlight the need for the development of safe and effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for this population.

Efficacy and feasibility of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia in long term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacological therapies are often recommended as a first-line treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia in long term care (LTC); however, little is known about which nonpharmacological interventions are most effective for NPS in LTC or the feasibility of interventions, given the availability of resources in typical LTC environments. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO (1980-2010), the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar using keywords and medical subject headings for randomized, controlled trials evaluating nonpharmacological interventions for NPS conducted in LTC settings. Change in severity of NPS symptoms was evaluated through the NPS outcomes measures reported in studies. We assessed study quality and described the feasibility of interventions based on various aspects of study design. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies met inclusion criteria. Sixteen (40%) of 40 included studies reported statistically significant results in favor of nonpharmacological interventions on at least one measure of NPS. These interventions included staff training in NPS management strategies, mental health consultation and treatment planning, exercise, recreational activities, and music therapy or other forms of sensory stimulation. Many of the studies had methodological limitations that placed them at potential risk of bias. Most interventions (n = 30, 75%) required significant resources from services outside of LTC or significant time commitments from LTC nursing staff for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: There are several nonpharmacological interventions that may be effective for NPS in LTC, although there are a limited number of large-scale, high-quality studies in this area. The feasibility of some interventions will be limited in many LTC settings and further research into practical and sustainable interventions for NPS in LTC is required to improve usage of these important treatments.

Knowledge-to-action processes in SHRTN collaborative communities of practice: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Seniors Health Research Transfer Network (SHRTN) Collaborative is a network of networks that work together to improve the health and health care of Ontario seniors. The collaborative facilitates knowledge exchange through a library service, knowledge brokers (KBs), local implementation teams, collaborative technology, and, most importantly, Communities of Practice (CoPs) whose members work together to identify innovations, translate evidence, and help implement changes.This project aims to increase our understanding of knowledge-to-action (KTA) processes mobilized through SHRTN CoPs that are working to improve the health of Ontario seniors. For this research, KTA refers to the movement of research and experience-based knowledge between social contexts, and the use of that knowledge to improve practice. We will examine the KTA processes themselves, as well as the role of human agents within those processes. The conceptual framework we have adopted to inform our research is the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use a multiple case study design (minimum of nine cases over three years) to investigate how SHRTN CoPs work and pursue knowledge exchange in different situations. Each case will yield a unique narrative, framed around the three PARIHS dimensions: evidence, context, and facilitation. Together, the cases will shed light on how SHRTN CoPs approach their knowledge exchange initiatives, and how they respond to challenges and achieve their objectives. Data will be collected using interviews, document analysis, and ethnographic observation. DISCUSSION: This research will generate new knowledge about the defining characteristics of CoPs operating in the health system, on leadership roles in CoPs, and on the nature of interaction processes, relationships, and knowledge exchange mechanisms. Our work will yield a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of KTA initiatives, and create a better understanding of how local caregiving contexts interact with specific initiatives. Our participatory design will allow stakeholders to influence the practical usefulness of our findings and contribute to improved health services delivery for seniors.