Postoperative analgesic effect, of preoperatively administered dexamethasone, after operative fixation of fractured neck of femur: randomised, double blinded controlled study.

Background: Fractured neck of femur is a common cause of hospital admission in the elderly and usually requires operative fixation. In a variety of clinical settings, preoperative glucocorticoid administration has improved analgesia and decreased opioid consumption. Our objective was to define the postoperative analgesic efficacy of single dose of dexamethasone administered preoperatively in patients undergoing operative fixation of fractured neck of femur. Methods: Institutional ethical approval was granted and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients awaiting for surgery at Cork University Hospital were recruited between July 2009 and August 2012. Participating patients, scheduled for surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups (Dexamethasone or Placebo). Patients in the dexamethasone group received a single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 immediately preoperatively. Patients in the placebo group received the same volume of normal saline. Patients underwent operative fixation of fractured neck of femur using standardised spinal anaesthesia and surgical techniques. The primary outcome was pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery. Results: Thirty seven patients were recruited and data from thirty patients were analysed. The groups were similar in terms of patient characteristics. Pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery (the principal outcome) were lesser in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group [0.8(1.3) vs. 3.9(2.9), mean(SD) p = 0.0004]. Cumulative morphine consumption 24 h after the surgery was also lesser in the dexamethasone group [7.7(8.3) vs. 15.1(9.4), mean(SD) mg, p = 0.04]. Conclusions: A single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 administered before operative fixation of fractured neck of femur improve significantly the early postoperative analgesia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01550146, date of registration: 07/03/2012

Patterns of psychotropic prescribing and polypharmacy in older hospitalized patients in Ireland: the influence of dementia on prescribing

Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (NPS) are ubiquitous in dementia and are often treated pharmacologically. The objectives of this study were to describe the use of psychotropic, anti-cholinergic, and deliriogenic medications and to identify the prevalence of polypharmacy and psychotropic polypharmacy, among older hospitalized patients in Ireland, with and without dementia. All older patients (≥ 70 years old) that had elective or emergency admissions to six Irish study hospitals were eligible for inclusion in a longitudinal observational study. Of 676 eligible patients, 598 patients were recruited and diagnosed as having dementia, or not, by medical experts. These 598 patients were assessed for delirium, medication use, co-morbidity, functional ability, and nutritional status. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of medication data on admission for 583/598 patients with complete medication data, and controlled for age, sex, and co-morbidity. Of 149 patients diagnosed with dementia, only 53 had a previous diagnosis. At hospital admission, 458/583 patients experienced polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications). People with dementia (PwD) were significantly more likely to be prescribed at least one psychotropic medication than patients without dementia (99/147 vs. 182/436; p < 0.001). PwD were also more likely to experience psychotropic polypharmacy (≥ two psychotropics) than those without dementia (54/147 vs. 61/436; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the prescribing patterns of anti-cholinergics (23/147 vs. 42/436; p = 0.18) or deliriogenics (79/147 vs. 235/436; p = 0.62). Polypharmacy and psychotropic drug use is highly prevalent in older Irish hospitalized patients, especially in PwD. Hospital admission presents an ideal time for medication reviews in PwD.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. Authors' conclusions: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.