Depression and Reduced Bone Mineral Density at the Hip and Lumbar Spine: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Studies in Adults 60 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: Older adults with depression are more likely to experience fractures, but it is unclear if this group has reduced bone mineral density (BMD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare BMD in older adults (60 years or older) with or without depression. METHODS: Two independent authors conducted searches of major electronic databases from inception till April 2015. Articles that measured BMD (in g/cm) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the hip or lumbar spine in a sample with depression (including those with major depressive disorder and depressive symptoms, henceforth called "depression") and a control group were included. A random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven publications across 10 unique studies representing 2511 participants with depression (mean [standard deviation] = 67.4 [6.5] years, 41.8% female) and 32,574 matched controls (mean [standard deviation] = 67.5 [5.9] years, 38.9% female) were included. Only one study confirmed a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, seven studies used a screening measure to define depressive symptoms, and two studies categorized depression by antidepressant medication use. Meta-analysis established that BMD is reduced at the hip in older adults with depression (g = -0.141, 95% confidence interval = -0.220 to -0.062, p < .0001, I = 61%). Meta-analysis from seven studies suggests that lumbar spine BMD may be reduced (g = -0.122, 95% confidence interval = -0.250 to 0.005, p = .06, I = 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Hip BMD is reduced in older adults with depression, although the effect size is small. Nevertheless, considering the deleterious impact of hip fractures in this population, the results are important. Future research should seek to disentangle the independent effects of depression and antidepressant medication on bone loss in older age.

Falls in older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD): a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptomology is now widely recognized as a key risk factor for falls. The evidence regarding the impact of major depressive disorder (MDD) on falls is unclear. A systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between MDD and falls. METHODS: Major electronic database were searched from inception till April 2015. Studies that defined MDD and measured falls prospectively in older adults (≥60 years) were included. Studies relying on depressive symptomology alone were excluded. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed and study findings were synthesized using an exploratory meta-analysis. RESULTS: From a potential of 415 articles, only three studies met the inclusion criteria. This included 976 unique older adults with a range of mean age from ≥65 to 83 years. The methodological quality of included studies was satisfactory. None of the included studies' primary aim was to investigate the relationship between MDD and falls. The exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated older adults with MDD are at increased risk of falling compared to non-depressed older adults (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% CI 2.0-8.1, I(2) = 60%, n = 976). CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research considering falls in older adults with MDD. Our results demonstrate that the odds of falling appear to be greater among people with MDD (OR 4.0) than in previous meta-analyses that have only considered subthreshold depressive symptoms. Given the distinct nature and challenges with MDD, more research is required to better understand the falls risk in this group.

Medicines management: an interview study of nurses at a secure psychiatric hospital.

AIMS: To explore mental health nurses' knowledge, attitudes and clinical judgement concerning medicines management in an inpatient setting with a view to enhancing training. BACKGROUND: Medicines management is a key role of mental health nurses, but little research has been conducted into their training needs. DESIGN: An exploratory mixed-methods design was used involving individual interviews with participants to investigate their responses to hypothetical medicine administration scenarios. METHODS: Interviews were held with a convenience sample of 50 Registered Nurses working in a specialist mental health hospital between November 2012-February 2013. Participants were presented with clinical vignettes describing eight scenarios they might encounter as part of their medicines management role and asked about how they would respond. Responses were assessed by two independent raters against ten quality standards underpinning the vignettes. RESULTS: The median number of responses that were judged to demonstrate adequate awareness of associated quality standards was 4 (range 1-7), indicating that many participants did not appear to be aware of, or compliant with, current UK medicines management guidance and local policy. Many would not report a 'near miss' or medicines administration error. There was a lack of awareness of guidance on verbal prescribing, consent to treatment rules and the administration of off-label/unlicensed drugs. Past year attendance on a medicines management course, time since registration and self-reported knowledge of national standards for medicines administration did not discriminate between total score on the 10 quality standards. CONCLUSION: The medicines management training needs of participants appeared not to be fully met by the existing learning sources. The use of vignettes to assess nurses' training needs requires evaluation in other settings.

Medication for borderline personality disorder: a survey at a secure hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To study the use of medication in the treatment of inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). To survey clinicians' views on the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline on BPD. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the use of psychotropics purely for BPD at a large secure UK psychiatric hospital, together with interviews with the treating psychiatrists. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients had a DSM diagnosis of BPD, of whom 80% were receiving one or more psychotropics and 48% were receiving two or more. Most prescriptions were off-label. Antipsychotics followed by antidepressants were the most frequent class of drug prescribed for BPD. Clozapine was the most commonly prescribed drug and according to the treating psychiatrists the one most likely to lead to a major improvement in target symptoms. Other psychotropics were generally rated as resulting in minor improvement or no change. Clinicians were aware they were prescribing contrary to NICE but justified this on the basis of having to treat severe and complex cases. CONCLUSIONS: Use of psychotropics (especially clozapine), off-label prescribing and polypharmacy were very common in these inpatients with BPD. Randomised controlled trials of the use of clozapine in severe BPD are needed.

Patient information leaflets for antidepressants: are patients getting the information they need?

BACKGROUND: According to European law a comprehensive patient information leaflet (PIL) has to accompany all medicines. In this study we examined the uniformity, adequacy and balance of information contained in UK antidepressant PILs. METHODS: We studied antidepressant PILs available in the Electronic Medicines Compendium and subjected each to a content analysis. Words were assessed as being positive, negative or neutral. RESULTS: Forty-two PILs concerning 21 different antidepressants and 23 pharmaceutical companies were studied. PILs presented information about side effects in a strikingly heterogeneous way, making it difficult for patients to find the required information. Half the PILs provided no information about how the antidepressant is thought to work. Over 90% stated the antidepressant would take 2-4 weeks to work, although a few PILs indicated earlier onset of improvement. Not all PILs warned about discontinuation syndrome and advice about alcohol was generally that it was prohibited. Almost half of PILs made no mention of St John's wort and its potential for interaction with the antidepressant. Two-thirds of PILs provided no information about the likely duration of treatment. PILs contained far more words judged to be negative rather than positive or neutral. LIMITATIONS: Data were extracted by a single researcher, although inter-rater agreement was high. CONCLUSIONS: Further guidance and tightening of the approval process for PILs are needed to ensure they are more standardised in content and contain more information that is wanted by and is useful to patients.

Administration of medicines in food and drink: a study of older inpatients with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties in administering medicines to older people are common, and medicines are sometimes mixed with food and drink to aid administration. Little is known about this practice or that of covert administration. This study aims to examine the nature, frequency, safety, reasons for and documentation of the administration of medicines in food and drink. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of mainly older adults, who were inpatients at a U.K. tertiary referral centre, was carried out, and nursing staff and consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. RESULTS: Of the 110 patients, 34 (30.9%) were receiving medication mixed with food or drink, although for only 52.9% was the procedure documented in the patient's care plan and for 64.7% was it documented on the medication chart. No associated safety issues were identified. The main reasons for this practice were swallowing difficulties (61.8%) and refusal to swallow tablets (47.1%). Thirteen out of 110 (11.8%) patients were receiving covert medication, most commonly antipsychotics and anxiolytics or hypnotics. All were detained and lacked capacity to consent. Most had dementia but a few had chronic schizophrenia. For only 46.2% was covert administration documented in the care plan and for 69.2% on the medication chart. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of medication in food or drink and covert medication were common in this group of hospitalized patients with severe mental illness. Before administering medication covertly it is important to discuss the matter with the multidisciplinary team and, where appropriate, with the patient's relatives. It is also important to ensure that supporting documentation has been completed in order to avoid medico-legal difficulties.

El Habano and the world it has shaped: Cuba, Connecticut, and Indonesia.

In the half century since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, El Habano remains the premium cigar the world over; but both before and since 1959, the seed, agricultural and industrial know-how, and human capital have been transplanted to replicate that cigar in a process accentuated by upheavals and out-migration. The focus here is on a little-known facet of the interconnected island and offshore Havana cigar history, linking Cuba with Connecticut and Indonesia: from when tobacco was taken from the Americas to Indonesia and gave rise to the famed Sumatra cigar wrapper leaf; through the rise and demise of its sister shade wrapper in Connecticut, with Cuban and Sumatra seed, ultimately overshadowed by Indonesia; and the resulting challenges facing Cuba today. The article highlights the role of Dutch, U.S., British, and Swedish capital to explain why in 2009 the two major global cigar corporations, British Imperial Tobacco and Swedish Match, were lobbying Washington, respectively, for and against the embargo on Cuba. As the antismoking, antitobacco lobby gains ground internationally, the intriguing final question is whether the future lies with El Habano or smokeless Swedish snus.

Antipsychotics for BPSD: an audit of prescribing practice in a specialist psychiatric inpatient unit.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics are widely used for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). In the light of the increased risk of cerebrovascular events, many countries have issued guidelines concerning their use in treating BPSD. METHODS: We carried out an audit of antipsychotic prescribing practice for inpatients with BPSD at a tertiary referral centre using standards derived from two U.K. dementia guidelines. We collated case note and prescription data and interviewed consultant psychiatrists. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients with dementia 50 (83%) had BPSD; of these, 28 (56%) were receiving antipsychotics. Those prescribed antipsychotics were more likely to have severe BPSD and to be aggressive and/or agitated. Audit of the 28 patients receiving antipsychotics for BPSD showed generally satisfactory results but there was room for improvement in case note documentation of off-label usage, screening for risk factors of cerebrovascular disease, consultation with relatives and use of an appropriate starting dose and slow titration of the antipsychotic. CONCLUSION: Audit of the use of antipsychotics for BPSD is important given the increased mortality associated with their use. Simple audit tools as used in this study can inform clinical practice. Even at a tertiary referral centre prescribing practice could be improved.

Delegation of medication administration: an exploratory study.

AIM: To examine the delegation of medication administration, including the frequency of delegation, whether delegation was to a care worker or a registered nurse (RN) and whether care workers were directly supervised when administering medication. METHOD: Administration of 1313 medication doses was observed on two inpatient psychiatric wards for older people. RESULTS: Administration was delegated by the nurse preparing the medication for four out of every five doses, usually to another registered nurse (78% of delegated doses), but also to care workers (22%). Care workers were more likely to administer medications to confused and aggressive patients than were registered nurses. CONCLUSION: Care workers who undertake delegated medication administration should receive regular training to ensure safety. Nurses remain accountable for delegated medication administration.

Dose form modification - a common but potentially hazardous practice. A literature review and study of medication administration to older psychiatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Many older patients have difficulty in swallowing their tablets and capsules. Dose form modification, by crushing tablets or opening capsules, is often used by nurses to administer such medication. METHODS: Electronic searches of five literature databases on tablet crushing and capsule opening were carried out. A review of medication incident reports involving tablet crushing from the U.K. National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) was also undertaken. An observational study of medication administration on two long-stay wards for older mentally ill inpatients was carried out in a large psychiatric hospital. RESULTS: Only 17 incidents involving tablet crushing were reported to NRLS in 13 months. In the observational study, the administration of 1257 oral doses of medication at 36 medication rounds was observed. Tablets were crushed or capsules opened for 25.5% (266/1045) of solid oral doses. For 44.0% (117/266) of these doses the tablet crushing had not been authorized by the prescriber. For 4.5% (12/266) of doses crushing was specifically contra-indicated by the manufacturer. In 57.5% (153/266) of doses, tablet crushing was avoidable by the correct use of more suitable preparations. Crushing caused contamination, spillage and hygiene problems. CONCLUSIONS: Although tablet crushing and capsule opening are common practices, they are rarely reported as causing patient harm. Tablet crushing can often be avoided by the use of more suitable preparations. Crushing tablets and opening capsules are contra-indicated for some preparations. Older patients' medication may benefit from review by a pharmacist in order to optimize safe medication administration. Where tablet crushing is unavoidable, attention to cleanliness, contamination and spillage are necessary.

Medication errors in older people with mental health problems: a review.

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarise published data on medication errors in older people with mental health problems. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that investigated medication errors in older people with mental health problems. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PHARMLINE, COCHRANE COLLABORATION and PsycINFO were searched electronically. Any studies identified were scrutinized for further references. The title, abstract or full text was systematically reviewed for relevance. RESULTS: Data were extracted from eight studies. In total, information about 728 errors (459 administration, 248 prescribing, 7 dispensing, 12 transcribing, 2 unclassified) was available. The dataset related almost exclusively to inpatients, frequently involved non-psychotropics, and the majority of the errors were not serious. CONCLUSIONS: Due to methodology issues it was impossible to calculate overall error rates. Future research should concentrate on serious errors within community settings, and clarify potential risk factors.

Off-label use of antipsychotics: are we mad?

The off-label prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to psychiatric patients of all ages is very common. Such off-label use is a necessary part of the art of psychiatry but brings with it increased responsibilities for the prescriber as, if the patient suffered an adverse reaction, liability would rest with the prescriber and/or their employers. This article reviews the frequency and nature of the off-label prescribing of antipsychotic drugs for psychiatric indications to children, adults and the elderly. It also reviews the evidence base for doing so in a variety of common, and also some less common, clinical situations. The review is mainly concerned with off-label indications but a short section on high dose antipsychotics is also included. The review concludes that the off-label prescription of antipsychotics frequently lacks the support of robust clinical trials. When prescribing off-label, the prescriber must carry out a careful risk assessment of the risks and benefits for the individual patient. They should also inform the patient that the prescription is off-label.

An observational study of medication administration errors in old-age psychiatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about medication administration errors in mental health settings. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and nature of medication administration errors in old-age psychiatry. To assess the acceptability of the observational technique to nurse participants. METHOD: Cross-sectional study technique using (i) direct observation, (ii) medication chart review and (iii) incident reports. SETTING: Two elderly long-stay wards in an independent UK psychiatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Nine nurses administering medication at routine medication rounds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, type and severity of directly observed medication administration errors compared with errors detected by retrospective chart review and incident reports. RESULTS: Using direct observation 369 errors in 1423 opportunities for errors (25.9%) were detected vs. chart review detected 148 errors and incident reports none. Most errors were of doubtful or minor severity. The pharmacist intervened on four occasions to prevent an error causing patient harm. The commonest errors observed were unauthorized tablet crushing or capsule opening (111/369, 30.1%), omission without a valid reason (100/369, 27.1%) and failure to record administration (87/369, 23.6%). Among the nurses observed, the error rate varied widely from no errors to one error in every two doses administered. Of the seven nurses who completed the post-observation questionnaire, all said they would be willing to be observed again. CONCLUSION: Medication administration errors are common and mostly minor. Direct observation is a useful, sensitive method for detecting medication administration errors in psychiatry and detects many more errors than chart review or incident reports. The technique appeared to be acceptable to most of the nursing staff that were observed.

Benzodiazepines--a necessary evil? A survey of prescribing at a specialist UK psychiatric hospital.

Guidelines on the prescription of benzodiazepines recommend their use be limited to the short-term relief of severe anxiety or insomnia. However, clinical experience suggests that in psychiatry these drugs may be being prescribed more widely. The aim of this survey was to investigate benzodiazepine prescribing in a specialist UK psychiatric hospital using a structured interview with consultant psychiatrists. Prescribers were also asked their views on the UK CSM guidance on benzodiazepines (1988). Of 412 inpatients, 77 (18.7%) were receiving 90 benzodiazepine prescriptions for psychiatric indications. Most prescriptions were for anxiety (45/90; 50.0%), aggression (23/90; 25.6%) and agitation (13/90; 14.4%). Use was commonest for acquired brain injury, schizophrenia and personality disorders. Much usage was chronic (only 4/90 (4.4%) prescriptions had been initiated within the previous 4 weeks) and off-label (85/90; 94.4%). Prescribers were concerned about the addictive nature of benzodiazepines for these patients and to a lesser extent about their abuse potential. Most consultants believed the UK CSM guidance was too restrictive in relation to their clinical practice and needed modification to encompass new indications, for example rapid tranquillization, and specialist prescribing. In psychiatry benzodiazepines are quite frequently used in the management of a number of groups of difficult-to-treat patients. Although largely not evidence based, some psychiatrists report a favourable risk-benefit ratio for benzodiazepines in the treatment of certain patients.

Prescription errors in psychiatry - a multi-centre study.

Medication errors are an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, of which there have been few reports in psychiatry, especially in the UK. Our aim was to examine the nature, frequency and potential severity of prescribing errors in UK mental health units in a prospective, 1 week survey of errors detected by pharmacy staff in nine NHS trusts. Pharmacists checked 22036 prescription items. In total, 523 errors meeting the study definition were detected (2.4% of prescription items checked). Prescription writing errors (77.4%) were most common, while decision-making errors accounted for 22.6% of errors. In 280 (53.5%) cases the prescribed drug had been administered before the error was detected. Most errors were of doubtful or minor importance but 22 (4.3%) were deemed likely to result in serious adverse effects or death. The error detection rate varied fourfold between trusts. Prescribing errors are fairly common in psychiatry. A small proportion of errors have the potential for serious harm. Pharmacy staff have an important role to play in their management.

A review of medication administration errors reported in a large psychiatric hospital in the United kingdom.

A retrospective analysis of reports of medication administration errors over a period of three and a half years was carried out in a UK psychiatric hospital. A total of 112 errors and "near misses" were studied. The reporting rate increased over time. Psychotropic, intramuscular, and as-needed medications were overrepresented in the error reports. Fifteen percent of the errors had the potential to cause moderate or severe harm to patients. The two most common factors cited by nurses as contributing to error causation were a busy, noisy environment and personal factors, such as feeling tired or unsupported. Physicians were cited as having contributed to some errors.

A survey of the off-label use of mood stabilizers in a large psychiatric hospital.

The term 'off-label' prescribing refers to the use of a drug outside the terms of its Marketing Authorization, including prescribing for an unlicensed indication. The aims of the study were to determine the frequency of off-label prescriptions for mood stabilizers (lithium and antiepileptics) among inpatients of a large psychiatric hospital, the nature of the off-label clinical indications in use and whether patients had been informed about the off-label usage.A cross-sectional survey of inpatients aged 18-65 years at St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, UK and interviews with consultant psychiatrists about off-label usage of mood stabilizers were carried out. Of the 249 patients studied, 75 (30.1%) were receiving one or more mood stabilizers, of which 71 (94.7%) were off-label. The most frequently cited off-label indications for mood stabilizers were: prophylaxis of mood swings (48 cases), treatment of aggression (31), manic symptoms (10), antipsychotic augmentation in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (7) and post-traumatic stress disorder (6). Lithium was prescribed infrequently. The reasons for this are discussed. Although in most instances the psychiatrist was aware the drug was being used off-label, in less than one-third of cases had the patient been informed of this, partly because of anticipated difficulties in their understanding the off-label concept, but also because of concerns that this information could adversely affect compliance. The off-label prescription of mood stabilizers is very common in psychiatry and such usage benefits patients. When prescribing off-label, psychiatrists should consider the evidence that the drug is likely to be effective for the unlicensed indication. Where there is limited evidence of benefit, a trial of the drug, with clinical monitoring, may be indicated. Patients should be fully informed about their medication, and this includes information that the prescription is off-label. Pharmacists can assist this process. The off-label concept may be difficult for some patients to understand.