A mixed-methods study on the pharmacological management of pain in Australian and Japanese nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how analgesics are used in different countries can inform initiatives to improve the pharmacological management of pain in nursing homes. AIMS: To compare patterns of analgesic use among Australian and Japanese nursing home residents; and explore Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals' perspectives on analgesic use. METHODS: Part one involved a cross-sectional comparison among residents from 12 nursing homes in South Australia (N = 550) in 2019 and four nursing homes in Tokyo (N = 333) in 2020. Part two involved three focus groups with Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals (N = 16) in 2023. Qualitative data were deductively content analysed using the World Health Organization six-step Guide to Good Prescribing. RESULTS: Australian and Japanese residents were similar in age (median: 89 vs 87) and sex (female: 73% vs 73%). Overall, 74% of Australian and 11% of Japanese residents used regular oral acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids. Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals described individualising pain management and the first-line use of acetaminophen. Australian participants described their therapeutic goal was to alleviate pain and reported analgesics were often prescribed on a regular basis. Japanese participants described their therapeutic goal was to minimise impacts of pain on daily activities and reported analgesics were often prescribed for short-term durations, corresponding to episodes of pain. Japanese participants described regulations that limit opioid use for non-cancer pain in nursing homes. CONCLUSION: Analgesic use is more prevalent in Australian than Japanese nursing homes. Differences in therapeutic goals, culture, analgesic regulations and treatment durations may contribute to this apparent difference.

Prevalence of strong anticholinergic use in residents with and without cognitive impairment and frailty: Analysis from 106 nursing homes in 12 Asia-Pacific and European countries.

PURPOSE: There is a need to balance the benefits and risks associated with strong anticholinergic medications in older adults, particularly among those with frailty and cognitive impairment. This study explored the international prevalence of strong anticholinergic medication use in residents of nursing homes with and without cognitive impairment and frailty. METHODS: Secondary, cross-sectional analyses of data from 5,800 residents of 106 nursing homes in Australia, China, Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and Spain were conducted. Strong anticholinergic medications were defined as medications with a score of 2 or 3 on the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale. Dementia or cognitive impairment was defined as a documented diagnosis or using a validated scale. Frailty was defined using the FRAIL-NH scale as 0-2 (non-frail), 3-6 (frail) and 7-14 (most-frail). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 17.4 % (n = 1010) residents used ≥1 strong anticholinergic medication, ranging from 1.3 % (n = 2) in China to 27.1 % (n = 147) in Italy. The most prevalent strong anticholinergics were quetiapine (n = 290, 5.0 % of all residents), olanzapine (132, 2.3 %), carbamazepine (102, 1.8 %), paroxetine (88, 1.5 %) and amitriptyline (87, 1.5 %). Prevalence was higher among residents with cognitive impairment (n = 602, 17.9 %) compared to those without (n = 408, 16.8 %), and among residents who were most frail (n = 553, 17.9 %) compared to those who were frail (n = 286, 16.5 %) or non-frail (n = 171, 17.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: One in six residents who were most frail and living with cognitive impairment used a strong anticholinergic. However, there was a 20-fold variation in prevalence across the 12 countries. Targeted deprescribing interventions may reduce potentially avoidable medication-harm.

Top 10 Signs and Symptoms of Psychotropic Adverse Drug Events to Monitor in Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To produce a consensus list of the top 10 signs and symptoms suggestive of adverse drug events (ADEs) for monitoring in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) who use antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants. DESIGN: A 3-round Delphi study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Geriatricians, psychiatrists, pharmacologists, general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses, and caregivers from 13 Asia Pacific, European, and North American countries. METHODS: Three survey rounds were completed between April and June 2023. In Round 1, participants indicated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale on whether 41 signs or symptoms identified in a systematic review should be routinely monitored. Participants considered signs and symptoms that reduce quality of life or cause significant harm, are observable or measurable by nurses or care workers, and can be assessed at a single time point. Round 1 statements were included in a list for prioritization in Round 3 if ≥ 70% of participants responded ≥7 on the Likert scale. Statements were excluded if ≤ 30% of participants responded ≥7. In Round 2, participants indicated their level of agreement with statements that did not reach initial consensus, plus amended statements based on Round 1 participant feedback. Round 2 statements were included in Round 3 if ≥ 50% of the participants responded ≥7 on the Likert scale. In Round 3, participants prioritized the signs and symptoms. RESULTS: Forty-four participants (93.6%) completed all 3 rounds. Four of 41 signs and symptoms reached consensus for inclusion after Round 1, and 9 after Round 2. The top 10 signs and symptoms prioritized in Round 3 were recent falls, daytime drowsiness or sleepiness, abnormal movements (eg, shaking or stiffness), confusion or disorientation, balance problems, dizziness, postural hypotension, reduced self-care, restlessness, and dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The top 10 signs and symptoms provide a basis for proactive monitoring for psychotropic ADEs.

Identifying Residents Who May Benefit from an Analgesic Review: Applying Analgesic Indicators in Residential Aged Care Services.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring safe and effective analgesic use in residential aged care services is important because older adults are susceptible to analgesic-related adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the proportion and characteristics of residents of aged care services who may benefit from analgesic review based on indicators in the 2021 Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA) Pain Management Guideline. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from the Frailty in Residential Sector over Time (FIRST) study (N = 550 residents) across 12 South Australian residential aged care services in 2019 were conducted. Indicators included the proportion of residents who received > 3000 mg/day of acetaminophen (paracetamol), regular opioids without a documented clinical rationale, opioid doses > 60 mg morphine equivalents (MME)/day, more than one long-acting opioid concurrently, and a pro re nata (PRN) opioid on more than two occasions in the previous 7 days. Logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with residents who may benefit from analgesic review. RESULTS: Of 381 (69.3%) residents charted regular acetaminophen, 176 (46.2%) were charted > 3000 mg/day. Of 165 (30%) residents charted regular opioids, only 2 (1.2%) had no prespecified potentially painful conditions in their medical record and 31 (18.8%) received > 60 MME/day. Of 153 (27.8%) residents charted long-acting opioids, 8 (5.2%) received more than one long-acting opioid concurrently. Of 212 (38.5%) residents charted PRN opioids, 10 (4.7%) received more than two administrations in the previous 7 days. Overall, 196 (35.6%) of 550 residents were identified as potentially benefiting from analgesic review. Females (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.91) and residents with prior fracture (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.33) were more likely to be identified. Observed pain (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88) was associated with a lower likelihood of being identified compared with residents with no observed pain. Overall, 43 (7.8%) residents were identified based on opioid-related indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Up to one in three residents may benefit from a review of their analgesic regimen, including 1 in 13 who may benefit from a specific review of their opioid regimen. Analgesic indicators represent a new approach to target analgesic stewardship interventions.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Analgesic Use and Appropriateness in Long-Term Care Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of interventions to improve analgesic use and appropriateness in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to June 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled prospective interventions that included analgesic optimization, and reported postintervention change in analgesic use or appropriateness in LTCFs were included. METHODS: Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 review authors. RESULTS: Eight cluster RCTs, 2 controlled, and 6 uncontrolled studies comprising 9056 residents across 9 countries were included. The 16 interventions included education (n = 13), decision support (n = 7), system modifications (n = 6), and/or medication review (n = 3). Six interventions changed analgesic use or appropriateness, all of which included prescribers, 5 involved multidisciplinary collaboration, and 5 included a component of education. Education alone changed analgesic use and appropriateness in 1 study. Decision support was effective when combined with education in 3 interventions. Overall, 13 studies reported analgesic optimization as part of pain management interventions and 3 studies focused on medication optimization. Two pain management interventions reduced the percentage of residents reporting pain not receiving analgesics by 50% to 60% (P = .03 and P < .001, respectively), and 1 improved analgesic appropriateness (P = .03). One reduced nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (P < .001) and another resulted in 3-fold higher odds of opioid prescription in advanced dementia [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-8.7]. One medication optimization intervention reduced NSAID prescription (P = .036), and another reduced as-needed opioid (95% CI 8.6-13.8) and NSAID prescription (95% CI 1.6-4.2). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Interventions involving prescribers and enhanced roles for pharmacists and nurses, with a component of education, are most effective at changing analgesic use or appropriateness. Interventions combining education and decision support are also promising. Medication review interventions can change analgesic prescription, although there is currently minimal evidence in relation to possible corresponding improvements in resident-related outcomes.

A systematic review of opioid prevalence in Australian residential aged care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, Web of Science Core Collection, InformIT and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to September 2021) were searched for studies reporting opioid prevalence in Australian RACFs. Regular and as-required (i.e. pro re nata, PRN) opioid uses were considered. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two review authors. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (n = 286,141 residents) reported opioid prevalence, of which 16 provided overall regular or PRN prescribing, dispensing or administration data. Five studies reported 28%-34% of residents were prescribed regular opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to one month. Five studies reported 11%-42% of residents were prescribed PRN opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to 30 months. Three studies reported 27%-50% of residents were dispensed an opioid over 12 months. Five studies reported 21%-29% were administered both regular and PRN opioids over 24 hours. Two studies reported 22%-42% of residents were administered PRN opioids over 1 week to 12 months. Two studies reported 6%-13% of residents were using doses >100 mg oral morphine equivalents/day. CONCLUSIONS: Up to half of the residents were dispensed opioids over 12 months. The prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration was highly variable, suggesting the potential value of opioid quality indicators and analgesic stewardship interventions to ensure opioid appropriateness.