No abstract

Antipsychotic and other tranquilising medicines are prescribed to help care staff manages behaviour in one-quarter of older people living in Australian long-term care homes. While these medicines pose significant health risks, particularly for people with dementia, reliance on their use occurs when staff are not educated to respond to resident behaviour using nonpharmacological approaches. The Halting Antipsychotic use in Long-Term care (HALT) single-arm study was undertaken to address this issue with 139 people 60 years and over with behaviours of concern for staff living in 24 care homes. A train-the-trainer approach delivered person-centred care education and support for 22 HALT (nurse) champions and 135 direct care staff, dementia management education for visiting general practitioners (GP) and pharmacists, use of an individualised deprescribing protocol for residents, and awareness-raising for the resident's family. The HALT champions completed open-ended questionnaires and semistructured interviews to identify the contextual elements they considered most critical to facilitating, educating care staff, and achieving success with the study intervention. They reported that person-centred approaches helped care staff to respond proactively to resident behaviours in the absence of antipsychotic medicines; the champions considered that this required strong managerial support, champion empowerment to lead change, reeducation of care staff, and the cooperation of families and GPs.

No abstract

While previous studies have described strategies to minimize inappropriate use of antipsychotic medications in people with dementia living in long-term care, sustainability and a culture of prescribing for BPSD in aged care remain challenges. The HALT project aims to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-disciplinary approach for deprescribing antipsychotics in this population.

Introduction Antipsychotic medications are commonly used to manage behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia despite their side effects and harms. While the Halting Antipsychotic Use in Long‐Term care (HALT) deprescribing trial was successful at reducing antipsychotic use, 19% of participants had their antipsychotics represcribed or never reached a dose of zero. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for represcription of antipsychotic medication and factors associated with ongoing antipsychotic use, relating to care staff requests and perceived behavioural changes. Materials and methods Thirty‐nine of 133 HALT participants never ceased their antipsychotic medication or were represcribed a regular or pro re nata (PRN) antipsychotic after initial deprescribing. The views of nursing staff, general practitioner, and family on the circumstances leading up to these outcomes were collected via a questionnaire‐based approach. This information was triangulated with observation and detailed file audit (including progress notes, medical notes, medication charts, incident reports, and hospital discharge summaries). A consensus panel reconstructed the represcribing context. Results Nurses were the most common drivers of represcribing (63.2%), followed by family members (39.5%), GPs (23.7%), specialists (13.2%), and hospital staff (10.5%). There were multiple drivers for antipsychotic use in 46.2% of participants. Increased agitated and aggressive behaviours were the most commonly reported reasons for represcribing even though these changes were not identified over time on objective measures. Consent and dosage practices remained poor despite education. Discussion Nursing staff are the key drivers of deprescribing particularly in response to perceived worsening agitation and aggression among male residents. The train‐the‐trainer model used in the HALT trial may have been insufficient on its own to improve staff competence and confidence in applying nonpharmacological approaches when responding to behaviour change.

Objectives:Use of antipsychotic drugs in long-term aged care (LTC) is prevalent and commonly exceeds the recommended duration, but contributors to this problem are not well understood. The objective of this study is to provide a snapshot of the features of and contributors to prolonged use of antipsychotic medications (>12 weeks) among a sample of LTC residents.Design:We present retrospective and baseline data collected for the Australian Halting Antipsychotic Use in Long-Term Care (HALT) single-arm longitudinal deprescribing trial.Setting:Twenty-four long-term care facilities in Sydney, Australia.Participants:The HALT study included 146 older people living in 24 Sydney LTC homes who had been prescribed a regular antipsychotic medication for at least 3 months at baseline.Measurements:Detailed file audit was conducted to identify the date and indication recorded at initial prescription, consenting practices, longitudinal course of prescribing, and recommendations for review of antipsychotic medication. Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and functional dependence at baseline were assessed via LTC staff interview. Cognition at baseline was assessed in a participant interview (where possible).Results:Antipsychotics were prescribed for 2.2 years on average despite recommendations by a doctor or pharmacist for review in 62% of cases. Consent for antipsychotic prescription was accessible for only one case and contraindications for use were common. Longer use of antipsychotics was independently associated with higher dose of the antipsychotic drug and greater apathy, but not with other BPSD.Conclusion:Antipsychotic medications appeared to be prescribed in this sample as a maintenance treatment in the absence of active indicated symptoms and without informed consent. Standard interventions, including recommendations for review, had been insufficient to ensure evidence-based prescribing.

Objective: Self-harm is closely associated with suicide in older adults and may provide opportunity to intervene to prevent suicide. This study aimed to systematically review recent evidence for three components of aftercare for older adults: (1) referral pathways, (2) assessment tools and safety planning approaches and (3) engagement and intervention strategies. Methods: Databases PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched from January 2010 to 10 July 2021 by two reviewers. Empirical studies reporting aftercare interventions for older adults (aged 60+) following self-harm (including with suicidal intent) were included. Full text of articles with abstracts meeting inclusion criteria were obtained and independently reviewed by three authors to determine final studies for review. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed level of evidence (Oxford) and quality ratings (Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for quantitative and Attree and Milton checklist for qualitative studies), working independently. Results: Twenty studies were reviewed (15 quantitative; 5 qualitative). Levels of evidence were low (3, 4), and quality ratings of quantitative studies variable, although qualitative studies rated highly. Most studies of referral pathways were observational and demonstrated marked variation with no clear guidelines or imperatives for community psychiatric follow-up. Of four screening tools evaluated, three were suicide-specific and one screened for depression. An evidence-informed approach to safety planning was described using cases. Strategies for aftercare engagement and intervention included two multifaceted approaches, psychotherapy and qualitative insights from older people who self-harmed, carers and clinicians. The qualitative studies identified targets for improved aftercare engagement, focused on individual context, experiences and needs. Conclusion: Dedicated older-adult aftercare interventions with a multifaceted, assertive follow-up approach accompanied by systemic change show promise but require further evaluation. Research is needed to explore the utility of needs assessment compared to screening and evaluate efficacy of safety planning and psychotherapeutic approaches.

In September 2018, in the wake of extensive media coverage and sanctions placed on a significant number of residential aged care facilities (RACFs), the Hon. Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, announced a Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The Royal Commission commenced on 11 February 2019 and has had, to date, a strong focus on both overuse and inappropriate use of physical and chemical restraint and the lack of consent for the use of restraint in aged care. Minister Wyatt was outspoken about his desire to tackle these issues and on 2 April 2019 made the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019. Section 96-1 of the Aged Care Act 1997 (Aged Care Act) provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make Quality of Care Principles, providing for matters required or permitted by Part 4.1 of the Act. The Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising