Recommendations for Next Steps in Our Understanding of Use of Antipsychotics Among Older People in the Post-Acute Long-Term Care Environments: Article 3 of 3.

This article is the third installment of a multi-part series on the history and usage of antipsychotics in older people living in nursing and assisted living facilities. This article presents next steps and recommendations for appropriate usage of antipsychotics in the older population based on the lead author's early drafts, submitted to the editors prior to his untimely death, of this series and on his consultations with the coauthors. Dr Levenson emphasized in his focus on next steps related to antipsychotic use: that all providers should review the history of antipsychotic use and recognize clinically legitimate alternative explanations for the findings. His conclusions were that "off label" usage should not be a reason to exclude the appropriate use of antipsychotics. His overall recommendations to clinicians are to assess and diagnose the underlying cause of the problem, understand the treatment options and select the best one to address the clinical problem and/or the symptom if the problem cannot be fully resolved, and to focus on all medications, not just antipsychotics, in a patient's regimen to aid in a comprehensive understanding of the assessment and inform therapeutic recommendations.

Antipsychotics in Perspective: Past, Present, and Future (Article 2 of 3).

The history of antipsychotics in nursing homes is one piece of a much larger, more complex puzzle. In many ways, it reflects the virtues and limitations of the entire health care system and those who provide care. None of the issues related to the use of antipsychotics are specific to these medications or to nursing homes. After decades of effort to reduce unwarranted antipsychotics use, the current situation is still a work in progress. Many widely held assumptions and standard narratives, such as those about behavior, the place of medications in person-centered care, and the causes of inappropriate medication use are only partially correct. This second of 3 articles is not intended to discuss how to diagnose and manage behavior disorders or choose medications. Instead, it addresses the diverse perspectives and key players that have been involved and the results of their efforts. Ultimately, this will set the stage for specific recommendations (part 3) about learning from past efforts surrounding antipsychotics to identify more definitive and lasting improvements in the future.

Antipsychotics: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2): Article 2 of 3.

The history of antipsychotics in nursing facilities is one piece of a much larger, more complex puzzle. In many ways, it reflects the virtues and limitations of the entire health care system and those who provide care. None of the issues related to the use of antipsychotics are specific to these medications or to nursing facilities. After decades of effort to reduce unwarranted antipsychotics use, the current situation is still a work in progress. Many widely held assumptions and standard narratives, such as those about behavior, the place of medications in person-centered care, and the causes of inappropriate medication use are only partially correct. This second of three articles is not intended to discuss how to diagnose and manage behavior disorders or choose medications. Instead, it addresses the diverse perspectives and key players that have been involved and the results of their efforts. Ultimately, this will set the stage for specific recommendations (part 3) about learning from past efforts surrounding antipsychotics to identify more definitive and lasting improvements in the future. Part 1 of this series covered the history of attempts to influence use of medications-especially, antipsychotics-in nursing facility care of residents with behavior, mood, and cognitive issues. These improvement efforts can be described as fragmented, often ineffectual, and politically fraught. After decades of effort, and despite a significant reduction in the indiscriminate use of antipsychotics, psychotropics are still widely used in nursing facilities.1 The extent of improvement overall in managing individuals with dementia and other diverse behavior, mood, and cognitive issues is unclear.

Antipsychotics in Perspective: Past, Present, and Future.

For more than half a century, there has been controversy and conflict over using psychotropic medications ("psychotropics") as strategies to modulate behavior, enhance mood, and address cognitive issues for nursing home residents. The current situation reflects a long history of investigation, reports, discussions, government and professional activity, and other attempted improvement. Although attention has focused primarily on the use of antipsychotics, particularly to manage symptoms associated with dementia, there are much broader issues. The use of all psychotropics has arguably been challenging and inconsistent. Although antipsychotic use in nursing homes has been reduced substantially, many controversies and concerns remain, such as the continuing significant use of other psychotropics. It is tempting to conclude that efforts to reduce the use of these medications might have been deliberately stymied, and that more drastic-if not coercive-measures are needed to correct these issues. However, many other compelling considerations must be defined accurately and addressed. Further improvement in the current situation requires reconsidering some current beliefs and approaches. A pause and reopening of meaningful discussion is needed. This 3-part series (in this and the next 2 issues of The Senior Care Pharmacist) will examine the history of the issues (this month), various perspectives on the issues (part 2), and lessons and recommended approaches for the future (part 3).

Smart Case Review: A Model For Successful Remote Medical Direction and Enhanced Nursing Home Quality Improvement.

This article describes how medical directors can use a strategic approach [Smart Case Review (SCR)] to perform effective and efficient clinical case reviews and key medical director oversight functions simultaneously. SCR can be done either on-site or remotely, by using existing information in the medical record for a focused clinical discussion of patient symptoms and issues while simultaneously evaluating related clinical practices and facility processes and performance. Common problem-solving and cause identification methods apply to both patient- and process-related reviews. This approach supports effective and efficient medical direction and facility quality improvement. Unlike most current approaches to quality assurance and performance improvement, SCR begins by reviewing cases and then aggregates the findings, instead of vice versa. Although the electronic medical record (EMR) facilitates the process, it can be done without an EMR. Any medical director can potentially use this approach, and it is relevant to any long-term and postacute care facility. This method could potentially transform the approach to medical direction, evaluating quality and improving care, and the nursing home survey process.

Reforming Management of Behavior Symptoms and Psychiatric Conditions in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Different Perspective.

Despite much attention including national initiatives, concerns remain about the approaches to managing behavior symptoms and psychiatric conditions across all settings, including in long-term care settings such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. One key reason why problems persist is because most efforts to "reform" and "correct" the situation have failed to explore or address root causes and instead have promoted inadequate piecemeal "solutions." Further improvement requires jumping off the bandwagon and rethinking the entire issue, including recognizing and applying key concepts of clinical reasoning and the care delivery process to every situation. The huge negative impact of cognitive biases and rote approaches on related clinical problem solving and decision making and patient outcomes also must be addressed.

DEA enforcement in long-term care: is a collaborative correction feasible?

The prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances within long-term care facilities is an important and complex issue from both the clinical and the public policy perspectives. This article reviews the regulatory background and clinical concerns regarding the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act by the Drug Enforcement Administration within the institutional pharmacies serving long-term care facilities. The article argues that the processes implemented since 2009 in response to concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration enforcement are suboptimal at many levels. A robust solution that meets the needs of all parties involved will require multiple levels of collaboration and respect for several legitimate agendas pertinent to this issue. The comprehensive solution must address at least 4 concerns. It must ensure that (1) residents and patients of long-term care facilities receive appropriate and timely administration of controlled substances when they are part of their individualized plans of care; (2) long-term care facilities have rigorous processes in place to prevent diversion of controlled substances; (3) required processes for prescribing controlled substances are reasonable and not overly burdensome to the clinicians caring for this population; and (4) all parties are in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The solution, however, will likely require legislative amendments to the Controlled Substances Act and regulatory revisions for optimal outcomes. The debate surrounding the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act within long-term care facilities is ongoing and the parameters are in flux. This article provides a historical perspective and policy framework for understanding the topic, reviews various proposed solutions, and suggests a collaborative process for resolution.

The health care decision-making process framework.

Health care decision making is a process that includes definable steps in a desirable sequence. The process is universally relevant (i.e., it applies in all settings) and enduring (i.e., it has remained applicable over time and will continue to apply in the future). Physicians play an essential role in the health care decision-making process. Learning to follow desired approaches at each step (e.g., optimal approaches to defining DMC) facilitates and improves the quality and pertinence of physician participation. Generally, diligent adherence to the steps in this process is likely to yield the best possible results--they are consistent with patient needs and values while facilitating pertinent utilization of health care resources--under often challenging and imperfect circumstances. Thus, the health care decision-making process constitutes a key component of the improvement and reform of health care, which is currently under much critical scrutiny.

The basis for improving and reforming long-term care. Part 4: identifying meaningful improvement approaches (segment 2).

While many aspects of nursing home care have improved over time, numerous issues persist. Presently, a potpourri of approaches and a push to "fix" the problem have overshadowed efforts to correctly define the problems and identify their diverse causes. This fourth and final article in the series (divided between last month's issue and this one) recommends strategies to make sense of improvement and reform efforts. This month's concluding segment covers additional proposed approaches. Despite the challenges of the current environment, all of the proposed strategies could potentially be applied with little or no delay. Despite having brought vast increases in knowledge, the research effort may be losing its traction as a formidable force for meaningful change. It is necessary to rethink the questions being asked and the scope of answers being sought. A shift to overcoming implementation challenges is needed. In addition, it is essential to address issues of jurisdiction (the apparent "ownership" of assessment and decision making over patient problems or body parts) and reductionism (the excessive management of these issues and problems without proper context) that result in fragmented and problematic care. Issues of knowledge and skill also need to be addressed, with greater emphasis on key generic and technical competencies of staff and practitioners, in addition to factual knowledge. There is a need to rethink the approach to measuring performance and trying to improve quality of care and services. There are significant limits to trying to use quality measures to improve outcomes and performance. Ultimately, vast improvement is needed in applying care principles and practices, independent of regulatory sources. Reimbursement needs to be revamped so that it helps promote care that is consistent with human biology and other key concepts. Finally, improving long-term care will require a coordinated societal effort. All social institutions and health care settings need to address their own shortcomings and contribute constructively in order to improve and reform nursing homes and health care generally. It is not helpful to scapegoat nursing homes for what are far more universal problems of care, practice, and performance.

The basis for improving and reforming long-term care. Part 4: identifying meaningful improvement approaches (segment 1).

While many aspects of nursing home care have improved over time, numerous issues persist. Presently, a potpourri of approaches and a push to "fix" the problem have overshadowed efforts to correctly define the issues and identify their diverse causes. Together, the two segments of this fourth and final article (divided between this month's issue and the next one) in the series identify strategies that should tie reform efforts together. This Segment 1 of Article 4 discusses the need to judge initiatives and proposals by how well they support and/or promote critical elements such as the care delivery process and clinical problem solving and decision making activities. It also covers the need to critically scrutinize and modify the conventional wisdom and to suppress "political correctness" thatcontinues to inhibit vital critical inquiry and dialogue that are needed to define issues correctly and make further progress. Ultimately, relatively uncomplicated and inexpensive strategies have the potential to bring dramatic progress. But there needs to be more willingness to rethink the issues and reconsider current approaches.

The basis for improving and reforming long-term care. Part 3: essential elements for quality care.

There is a pervasive effort to reform nursing homes and improve the care they provide. Many people are trying to educate and inform nursing homes and their staff, practitioners, and management about what to do and not do, and how to do it. But only some of that advice is sound. After more than 3 decades of such efforts, and despite evidence of improvement in many facets of care, there are still many issues. Despite improvements, the overall public, political, and health professional perception of nursing homes is often still negative. To date, no tactic or approach has succeeded nationwide in consistently facilitating good performance or correcting poor performance. Only some of the current efforts to try to improve nursing home quality and to measure it are on target. Many of the measures used to assess the quality of performance have limited value in guiding overall quality improvement. Before we can reform nursing homes, we must understand what needs to be reformed. This series of articles has focused on what is needed for safe, effective, efficient, and person-centered care. Ultimately, all efforts to improve nursing home care quality must be matched against the critical elements needed to provide desirable care. Based on the discussions in the previous 2 articles, this third article in this 4-part series considers 5 key elements of care processes and practices that can help attain multiple desirable quality objectives.