ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This naturalistic prospective observation study examines the efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treating dementia-related agitation. METHODS: Patients with dementia-related agitation who received ECT were compared with patients with the same condition who did not receive ECT using Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-nursing home version, and Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Outcomes were compared between ECT-treated and non-ECT-treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 9 patients were included in the study. Six received ECT, and 3 did not. Patients in the ECT and non-ECT-treated groups had comparable baseline scores (CMAI, P = 0.880; NPI, P = 0.814; and CGI, P = 0.445). The CMAI, NPI, and CGI scores were lower on final assessment in both groups with no statistically significant difference (CMAI, P = 0.771; NPI, P = 0.243; and CGI, P = 0.519). CONCLUSIONS: Electroconvulsive therapy should be considered as a treatment option in the management of severe treatment refractory dementia-related agitation.
Subject(s)
Dementia/complications , Electroconvulsive Therapy/methods , Psychomotor Agitation/etiology , Psychomotor Agitation/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aggression/psychology , Dementia/psychology , Electroconvulsive Therapy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Neuropsychological Tests , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Patient Self-Determination Act along with regulatory standards and institutional standards of care highlight the need for collaboration between care providers and patients with respect to goals of care and, in emergency situations, code status and measures to be taken in keeping with patients' wishes. Addressing code status may be lacking in patients who require psychiatric hospitalization due to the nature of psychiatric illness, relative medical stability, and a general expectation of survival. We sought to compare code status documentation and discussion between psychiatric and medical inpatients, as this knowledge will help shape future interventions for process improvement. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients in psychiatric and medical units during a 12-month period in 2008. For those with multiple admissions, we reviewed only the index (or first) hospitalization. Data collected included demographic information, clinical information regarding cancer as a primary diagnosis or a diagnosis that met National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) guidelines, code status order and discussion documentation, the presence of an advance directive, length of stay, and 1-year mortality. Data were summarized using mean values, percentages, and frequencies. The 2 groups (psychiatric and medical groups) were compared. RESULTS: The charts of 276 psychiatric patients and 317 general medical patients were reviewed. More psychiatric patients had dementia (P < .001). Medical inpatients had a higher rate of code status order documented on admission (96% vs 65%, P < .001) and "full-code, discussed" order (67% vs 33%, P < .001). Psychiatric inpatients had more "do not resuscitate/do not intubate" orders (20% vs 13%, P = .037), more frequent changes in code status order (18% vs 7%, P < .001), and a higher percentage of advance directives (46% vs 25%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A code status discussion with hospitalized patients needs to occur at admission regardless of reason for admission. Strategies are needed to improve this process for psychiatric inpatients.
