Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Psychotropic medication prescribing in assisted living and nursing home residents with dementia after the National Partnership
Antoinette B Coe, Tingting Zhang, Andrew R Zullo, Lauren B Gerlach, Kali S Thomas, Lori A Daiello, Hiren Varma, Derrick Lo et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2022-08-19
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. Antipsychotic prescribing declined over the study period in both settings. After the launch of the Partnership, the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing slowed in AL residents with dementia (slope change = 0.03 [95% CLs: 0.02, 0.04]) while the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing increased in LSNH residents with dementia (slope change = -0.12 [95% CLs: -0.16, -0.08]). Antidepressants were the most prevalent medication prescribed, anticonvulsant/mood stabilizer prescribing increased, and anxiolytic/sedative-hypnotic and antidementia medication prescribing declined. The federal Partnership to reduce antipsychotic prescribing in NH residents did not appear to affect antipsychotic prescribing in AL residents with dementia. Given the increase in the prescribing of mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants that occurred after the launch of the Partnership, monitoring may be warranted for all psychotropic medications in AL and NH settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Coe, A. B., Zhang, T., Zullo, A. R., Gerlach, L. B., Thomas, K. S., Daiello, L. A., et al. (2022). Psychotropic medication prescribing in assisted living and nursing home residents with dementia after the National Partnership. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18004
Vancouver
Coe AB, Zhang T, Zullo AR, Gerlach LB, Thomas KS, Daiello LA, et al. Psychotropic medication prescribing in assisted living and nursing home residents with dementia after the National Partnership. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2022. doi:10.1111/jgs.18004. PMID: 35984088.
BibTeX
@article{coe2022-35984088,
author = {Coe, Antoinette B and Zhang, Tingting and Zullo, Andrew R and Gerlach, Lauren B and Thomas, Kali S and Daiello, Lori A and Varma, Hiren and Lo, Derrick and others},
title = {{Psychotropic medication prescribing in assisted living and nursing home residents with dementia after the National Partnership}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.18004},
pmid = {35984088},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18004}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively.
- Antipsychotic prescribing declined over the study period in both settings.
- After the launch of the Partnership, the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing slowed in AL residents with dementia (slope change = 0.03 [95% CLs: 0.02, 0.04]) while the rate of decline in antipsychotic prescribing increased in LSNH residents with dementia (slope change = -0.12 [95% CLs: -0.16, -0.08]).
- Antidepressants were the most prevalent medication prescribed, anticonvulsant/mood stabilizer prescribing increased, and anxiolytic/sedative-hypnotic and antidementia medication prescribing declined.
- The federal Partnership to reduce antipsychotic prescribing in NH residents did not appear to affect antipsychotic prescribing in AL residents with dementia.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35984088) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 32 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “galantamine”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “galantamine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.