首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association >When Less is More, but Still Not Enough: Why Focusing on Limiting Antipsychotics in People With Dementia Is the Wrong Policy Imperative
【24h】

When Less is More, but Still Not Enough: Why Focusing on Limiting Antipsychotics in People With Dementia Is the Wrong Policy Imperative

机译:当较少的时候,但仍然不够:为什么要关注限制痴呆症人们的抗精神病药是错误的政策必要

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Antipsychotic reductions have been the primary focus of efforts to improve dementia care in nursing homes by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Partnership. Although significant antipsychotic reductions have been achieved, this policy focus is myopic in 2 ways; there is no evidence for any increases in use of nonpharmacologic interventions, and there are indications for compensatory increases in the use of other (unmeasured) sedating psychotropics. This increased use of other sedating psychotropics is more concerning than the antipsychotics that they replaced, as there is even less support of efficacy for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and ample proof of harms, including mortality. The current paradigm of "assessment" and "treatment" for BPSD is largely cursory and reflexive, with little effort put forth to understand possible underlying causes. This contrasts with the methodical, evidence-based way the field handles other symptoms considered "medical" (eg, shortness of breath). To move beyond this nonmedical approach to BPSD, we suggest a conceptual model that includes putative causal contributors. Although at their core BPSD are caused by brain circuitry disruptions, such disruptions are theorized to increase the person with dementia's vulnerability to 3 categories of triggers: those related to the (1) patient (eg, pain, hunger, and infection), (2) caregivers (eg, competing priorities, unrealistic expectations, and negative communications), and (3) environment (eg, overstimulation and limited light exposure). Assessing modifiable triggers is inherently person-centered as it enables clinicians to select specific nonpharmacologic strategies to mitigate identified triggers. Assessing triggers and selecting strategies, however, is time-intensive and reflects a paradigm shift necessitating a reorganization of dementia care including compensation for time spent elucidating and addressing modifiable triggers, vs unintendedly incentivizing the use of potentially harmful psychotropics. This paradigm shift should also include the measurement and restriction of any sedating medications for BPSD, particularly without assessment of underlying causes. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.
机译:抗精神病药减少是通过医疗保险和医疗补助服务国家伙伴关系的中心改善疗养院的疗养痴呆症护理的主要焦点。虽然已经实现了显着的抗精神病药减少,但这种政策焦点是2种方式的近视;使用非武装干预措施没有任何增加的证据,并且在使用其他(未测量)镇静精神药物的补偿性增加时存在迹象表明。这种增加的其他镇静精神药物的使用比他们所替代的抗精神病药更讨论,因为痴呆症(BPSD)的行为和心理症状和充裕的危害证明,包括死亡率的疗效甚至不那么少。 “评估”和“评估”和“待遇”的目前的范式很大程度上是摩托和反思,很少有努力,以了解可能的潜在原因。这与现场处理其他症状被认为是“医疗”(例如,呼吸急促)的方法形成鲜明对比。为了超越这种非医疗方法来BPSD,我们建议一个包括推定因果贡献者的概念模型。虽然在他们的核心BPSD是由脑电路中断引起的,但这些中断都是了解患有痴呆症的脆弱性的人为3类触发器:与(1)患者有关的人(例如,疼痛,饥饿和感染),(2 )护理人员(例如,竞争优先事项,不切实际的期望和负通信),(3)环境(例如,过度刺激和有限的曝光)。评估可修改的触发器本质上是以人为本,因为它使临床医生能够选择特定的非武渣策略来缓解已识别的触发器。然而,评估触发器和选择策略是时间密集的,并反映了范式转变,这需要重组痴呆症护理,包括补偿所花费的时间和解决可修改的触发器,与潜在有害的精神药物的使用无意中激励。这种范式转变还应包括对BPSD任何镇静药物的测量和限制,特别是没有评估潜在原因。由elsevier公司发布代表AMDA - 急性和长期护理医学协会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号