Depression in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Depression affected 5.7% of people aged 60 years and over prior to the pandemic and has increased by approximately 28%. The aim of this study is to identify and describe factors associated with depressive symptoms, the diagnostic assessment instruments and interventions used to evaluate and treat depression in adults aged 60 years and older since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Four electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies published since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 832 articles were screened, of which 53 met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Factors contributing to depressive symptoms in older adults prior to the pandemic were grouped into the following categories: sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., being female); loneliness and weak social support; limitations in daily functioning, physical activity and neurocognitive impairment; and clinical factors. The following groups of factors directly related to the pandemic were found: stress-related factors and feelings or worries related to the pandemic; information access (e.g., receiving news about COVID-19 through the media); factors directly related to COVID-19 (e.g., having infected acquaintances); and factors related to the measures that were taken to reduce the spread of COVID-19 (e.g., confinement measures). The most frequently used instrument to assess depressive symptoms was the Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS-SF). Four studies implemented interventions during the pandemic that led to significant reductions in depressive symptoms and feelings of loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of pandemic-associated risk factors for depression can inform person-cantered care. It is important continued mental healthcare for depression for older adults throughout crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote delivery of mental healthcare represents an important alternative during such times. It is crucial to address depression in older adults (which often causes disability), since the pandemic situation has increased depressive symptoms in this population.

Prescribing-Assessment Tools for Long-Term Care Pharmacy Practice: Reaching Consensus through a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Medicines are the most used health technology in Long-Term Care. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate medicines amongst Long-Term Care patients is high. Pharmacists, assisted by prescribing-assessment tools, can play an important role in optimizing medication use at this level of care. Through a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 13 long-term care and hospital pharmacists assessed as 'appropriate', 'uncertain', or 'inappropriate' a collection of commonly used prescribing-assessment tools as to its suitability in assisting pharmacy practice in institutional long-term care settings. A qualitative analysis of written or transcribed comments of participants was pursued to identify relevant characteristics of prescribing-assessment tools and potential hinders in their use. From 24 different tools, pharmacists classified 9 as 'appropriate' for pharmacy practice targeted to long-term care patients, while 3 were classified as 'inappropriate'. The tools feature most appreciated by study participants was the indication of alternatives to potentially inappropriate medication. Lack of time and/or pharmacists and limited access to clinical information seems to be the most relevant hinders for prescribing-assessment tools used in daily practice.

Probing pharmacists' interventions in Long-Term Care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Long-Term Care (LTC) systems have experienced recent developments driven by changes in healthcare and demography (e.g. population ageing). As well, pharmacists are changing from traditional roles to more patient-oriented services. The present study aimed to identify and assess pharmacists' and/or pharmacy-based interventions in institutional LTC settings, also mapping relevant medications. METHODS: The review was undertaken in general accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), using three main literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge). A set of 16 keywords, divided into three domains (professional, type of care and type of setting), were combined into search equations. Selected studies were assessed through the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, out of 794 initial hits. Most studies (12) described pharmacist/pharmacy-driven interventions assessing Medication Management Reviews' impact in different endpoints or outcomes. Other studies (3) assessed pharmacists' interventions on specific medication groups. Good Administration Practices, new pharmaceutical care models, antibiotic stewardship programs, and studies assessing other pharmacists' interventions, such as pharmacy-managed informatics and education, were addressed by 11 other papers. Six studies were classified as Strong after quality assessment. CONCLUSION: LTC is a clinically complex type of care benefiting from interdisciplinary work. Despite the overall lower quality of the identified studies, pharmacists perform in a wide array of LTC areas. The broad implementation of pharmaceutical activities in institutional LTC settings opens opportunities to optimise medicines' use.