BackgroundAdherence to medication is vital for disease management while simultaneously reducing healthcare expenditure. Older persons with cognitive impairment (CI) are at risk for non-adherence as cognitive processes are needed to manage medications. This systematic review focuses on the relationship between medication non-adherence and specific cognitive domains in persons with CI, and explores determinants of medication non-adherence. When available, relationships and factors are compared with cognitively intact populations.MethodsA seven database systematic search of studies published between 1 January 1949–31 December 2015 examining medication non-adherence in community dwelling persons with CI or dementia was conducted. Articles reporting medication non-adherence in people with CI or dementia in the community, with or without caregiver supports were eligible for inclusion. Papers reporting adherence to treatments in cognitively intact populations, populations from hospital or institutional settings, for non-prescribed medication or those describing dementia as a factor predicting medication non-adherence were excluded. Data on study and population characteristics, research design, data sources and analysis, specific cognitive domains, non-adherence prevalence, measurement of adherence, salient findings, factors associated with adherence and strategies to improve medication adherence were extracted. Study limitations included inconsistencies between data sources and definitions, resulting in a loss of fidelity in the value and comprehensiveness of data, as well as exclusion of non-pharmacological treatments and regimens.FindingsFifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Adherence among CI subjects ranged from 10.7%-38% with better rates of adherence in non-CI individuals. Medication non-adherence definitions varied considerably. New-learning, memory and executive functioning were associated with improved adherence and formed the focus of most studies. Multiple factors were identified as modulators of non-adherence.ConclusionThis review highlights a gap in knowledge on how specific cognitive domains contribute to medication non-adherence amongst CI populations, and demonstrates the current focus is limited to two domains: memory and executive functioning.

This systematic review informs researchers, clinicians and policy-makers about how to reduce external causes of death in nursing homes.

this national study confirms that the use of physical restraint does cause fatalities, although rare. Further research is still needed to identify which alternatives strategies to restraint are most effective, and to examine the reporting system for physical restraint-related deaths.

Forensic toxicological data provides valuable insight into the potential contribution of alcohol and drugs to external-cause deaths. There is a paucity of material that guides injury researchers on the principles that need to be considered when examining the presence and contribution of alcohol and drugs to these deaths. This paper aims to describe and discuss strengths and limitations of postmortem forensic toxicology sample selection, variations in analytical capabilities and data interpretation for injury prevention research. Issues to be considered by injury researchers include: the circumstances surrounding death (including the medical and drug use history of the deceased person); time and relevant historical factors; postmortem changes (including redistribution and instability); laboratory practices; specimens used; drug concentration; and attribution of contribution to death. This paper describes the range of considerations for testing and interpreting postmortem forensic toxicology, particularly when determining impairment or toxicity as possible causal factors in injury deaths. By describing these considerations, this paper has application to decisions about study design and case inclusion in injury prevention research, and to the interpretation of research findings.

ObjectiveTo explore whether subscribers reported clinical practice changes as a result of reading the Clinical Communiqué (CC). Secondarily, to compare the characteristics of subscribers who self-reported changes to clinical practice with those who did not, and to explore subscribers’ perceptions of the educational value of the CC.Design, setting and participantsOnline cross-sectional survey between 21 July 2015 and 18 August 2015 by subscribers of the CC (response rate=29.9%, 1008/3373), conducted by a team from Monash University, Australia.Main outcome measuresChange in clinical practice as a result of reading the CC.Results53.0% of respondents reported that their practice had changed after reading the CC. Respondents also found that the CC raised awareness (96.5%) and provided ideas about improving patient safety and care (94.1%) leading them to discuss cases with their colleagues (79.6%) and review their practice (75.7%). Multivariate analysis indicated that working in a residential aged care facility (p<0.05) and having taken part in an inquest (p<0.05) were significantly associated with practice change.ConclusionThe design and content of the CC has generated a positive impact on the healthcare community. It is presented in a format that appears to be accessible and acceptable to readers and achieves its goals of promoting safer clinical care through greater awareness of the medico-legal context of practice.

Objective To develop and prioritise recommendations to prevent the use of physical restraints among nursing home residents. Methods This study comprised two expert and stakeholder consultation forums using a modified nominal group technique and a follow‐up electronic survey to rank the final set of recommendations. Results There were 15 recommendations formulated to prevent the use of physical restraint among nursing home residents. The three recommendations ranked as most important were that: a single definition be mandated for describing “physical restraint”; use of physical restraint acts as a trigger for mandatory referral to a specialist aged care team; and nursing home staff profile and competencies are appropriate to meet the complex needs of residents with dementia and obviate the need to apply physical restraint. Conclusions Future studies should investigate the feasibility of implementing these recommendations and whether the proposed interventions reduce the use of physical restraint. Implications Implementation of recommendations to prevent the use of physical restraint may assist nursing home staff, providers and policy makers to deliver improved care that is more aligned with contemporary views of human rights.

Background: Empirical research investigating older adult homicide is sparse and rarely accumulated for greater insights. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence and characteristics of homicide victimization among older adults (65 years and older) compared with younger adults (18–64 years). Method: We searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published before December 31, 2018 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration: CRD42017054536). Included were English-language, original, peer-reviewed studies describing the homicide of older adults. Excluded were studies not meeting age criteria, residence as an institution, or with insufficient outcome variables. The review included 39 studies; 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted via open access or from study authors. Heterogeneity was assessed through study-level random effects estimates. Results: Pooled homicide rates per 100,000 population were 2.02 (95% CI [1.23, 3.33]) for older adults ( n = 35,325) and 3.98 (95% CI [2.42, 6.53]) for younger adults ( n = 607,224; rate ratio = .51, 95% CI [0.37, 0.70], p < .001). Proportion estimates for older adults: victim female 46.3%, location home 71.4%, offender familiar 25.2%, compared to stranger, 24.2%, motive argument 36.1%, compared to felony 30.8%, and weapon firearm 24.5%. Older adults were significantly different to younger adult victims ( p = <.001) for female ( OR = 2.5, 95% CI [2.02, 3.10]), home (3.87, 95% CI [3.45, 4.35]), stranger (1.81, 95% CI [1.66, 1.98]), argument (0.33, 95% CI [0.28, 0.39]), felony (2.78, 95% CI [2.58, 2.99]), and firearm (0.38, 95% CI [0.36, 0.40]). Conclusions: Homicide against older adults differs from younger adults and warrants specific research and tailored prevention strategies.

No abstract