Ethical Issues Raised by the Introduction of Artificial Companions to Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Call for Interdisciplinary Collaborations.

Due to the high costs of providing long-term care to older adults with cognitive impairment, artificial companions are increasingly considered as a cost-efficient way to provide support. Artificial companions can comfort, entertain, and inform, and even induce a sense of being in a close relationship. Sensors and algorithms are increasingly leading to applications that exude a life-like feel. We focus on a case study of an artificial companion for people with cognitive impairment. This companion is an avatar on an electronic tablet that is displayed as a dog or a cat. Whereas artificial intelligence guides most artificial companions, this application also relies on technicians "behind" the on-screen avatar, who via surveillance, interact with users. This case is notable because it particularly illustrates the tension between the endless opportunities offered by technology and the ethical issues stemming from limited regulations. Reviewing the case through the lens of biomedical ethics, concerns of deception, monitoring and tracking, as well as informed consent and social isolation are raised by the introduction of this technology to users with cognitive impairment. We provide a detailed description of the case, review the main ethical issues and present two theoretical frameworks, the "human-driven technology" platform and the emancipatory gerontology framework, to inform the design of future applications.

Valproate preparations for agitation in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Agitation has been reported in up to 90% of people with dementia. Agitation in people with dementia worsens carer burden, increases the risk of injury, and adds to the need for institutionalisation. Valproate preparations have been used in an attempt to control agitation in dementia, but their safety and efficacy have been questioned. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of valproate preparations used to treat agitation in people with dementia, including the impact on carers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 7 December 2017 using the terms: valproic OR valproate OR divalproex. ALOIS contains records from all major health care databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials that assessed valproate preparations for agitation in people with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the retrieved studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies. If necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional data, including relevant subscales, or for other missing information. We pooled data in meta-analyses where possible. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2009. We found no new studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: The review included five studies with 430 participants. Studies varied in the preparations of valproate, mean doses (480 mg/day to 1000 mg/day), duration of treatment (three weeks to six weeks), and outcome measures used. The studies were generally well conducted although some methodological information was missing and one study was at high risk of attrition bias.The quality of evidence related to our primary efficacy outcome of agitation varied from moderate to very low. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that measured behaviour with the total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score (range 0 to 108) and with the BPRS agitation factor (range 0 to 18). They found that there was probably little or no effect of valproate treatment over six weeks (total BPRS: mean difference (MD) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to 2.59; 202 participants, 2 studies; BPRS agitation factor: MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.15; 202 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence from three studies which measured agitation with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Index (CMAI) were consistent with a lack of effect of valproate treatment on agitation. There was variable quality evidence on other behaviour outcomes reported in single studies of no difference between groups or a benefit for the placebo group.Three studies, which measured cognitive function using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), found little or no effect of valproate over six weeks, but we were uncertain about this result because the quality of the evidence was very low. Two studies that assessed functional ability using the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS) (range 6 to 30) found that there was probably slightly worse function in the valproate-treated group, which was of uncertain clinical importance (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 203 participants, 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence).Analysis of adverse effects and serious adverse events (SAE) indicated a higher incidence in valproate-treated participants. A meta-analysis of three studies showed that there may have been a higher rate of adverse effects among valproate-treated participants than among controls (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.14; 381 participants, 3 studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis of the number of SAE for the two studies that reported such data indicated that participants treated with valproate preparations were more likely to experience SAEs (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 22.74; 228 participants, 2 studies), but the very low quality of the data made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding SAEs. Individual adverse events that were more frequent in the valproate-treated group included sedation, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea), and urinary tract infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review corroborates earlier findings that valproate preparations are probably ineffective in treating agitation in people with dementia, but are associated with a higher rate of adverse effects, and possibly of SAEs. On the basis of this evidence, valproate therapy cannot be recommended for management of agitation in dementia. Further research may not be justified, particularly in light of the increased risk of adverse effects in this often frail group of people. Research would be better focused on effective non-pharmacological interventions for this patient group, or, for those situations where medication may be needed, further investigation of how to use other medications as effectively and safely as possible.

Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest limited and cautious use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium where nonpharmacological interventions have failed and symptoms remain distressing or dangerous, or both. It is unclear how well these recommendations are supported by current evidence. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy of antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on the duration of delirium in hospitalised adults. Our secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of: 1) antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on delirium severity and resolution, mortality, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects; and 2) atypical vs. typical antipsychotics for reducing delirium duration, severity, and resolution, hospital mortality and length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane EBM Reviews, CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) from their respective inception dates until July 2017. We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science ISI Proceedings, and other grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing 1) antipsychotics to nonantipsychotics or placebo and 2) typical to atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium in adult hospitalised (but not critically ill) patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined titles and abstracts of identified studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data independently in duplicate. Disagreements were settled by further discussion and consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, and between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials that recruited 727 participants. Four of the nine trials included a comparison of an antipsychotic to a nonantipsychotic drug or placebo and seven included a comparison of a typical to an atypical antipsychotic. The study populations included hospitalised medical, surgical, and palliative patients.No trial reported on duration of delirium. Antipsychotic treatment did not reduce delirium severity compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.08, 95% CI -2.55 to 0.39; four studies; 494 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02; seven studies; 542 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence antipsychotics resolved delirium symptoms compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.98; three studies; 247 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; five studies; 349 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled results indicated that antipsychotics did not alter mortality compared to nonantipsychotic regimens (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.27; three studies; 319 participants; low-quality evidence) nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.35; four studies; 342 participants; low-quality evidence).No trial reported on hospital length of stay, hospital discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life. Adverse event reporting was limited and measured with inconsistent methods; in those reporting events, the number of events were low. No trial reported on physical restraint use, long-term cognitive outcomes, cerebrovascular events, or QTc prolongation (i.e. increased time in the heart's electrical cycle). Only one trial reported on arrhythmias and seizures, with no difference between typical or atypical antipsychotics. We found antipsychotics did not have a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.04 to 65.57; three studies; 247 participants; very-low quality evidence); pooled results showed no increased risk of EPS with typical antipsychotics compared to atypical antipsychotics (RR 12.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 269.52; two studies; 198 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no reported data to determine whether antipsychotics altered the duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life as studies did not report on these outcomes. From the poor quality data available, we found antipsychotics did not reduce delirium severity, resolve symptoms, or alter mortality. Adverse effects were poorly or rarely reported in the trials. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not more frequent with antipsychotics compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens, and no different for typical compared to atypical antipsychotics.

Benzodiazepines for delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

Valproate preparations for agitation in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Agitation affects up to 70% of older people with dementia. Valproic acid derivatives have been used for the past 10 years to control agitation in dementia, but no systematic review of the effectiveness of this treatment has been published to date. A systematic review of 2004 examined three randomised, placebo-controlled trials of the effect of valproate therapy on older people with dementia who were agitated. The review was updated (October 2008) to include two additional studies. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether evidence supports the use of valproate preparations in the treatment of agitation of people with dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 7 February 2008 using the terms: valproic OR valproate OR divalproex* . The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from all major health care databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials with concealed allocation where agitation and dementia of participants were assessed DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 1. Two reviewers extracted data from published trials 2. Odds ratios of average differences were calculated 3. Only "intention to treat" analyses were included 4. Analysis compared participants treated with valproic acid with controls MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis in 2004 of the pooled results was limited because of the following problems.In Porsteinsson 2001, although the physicians having direct responsibility for patient care were blinded, a non-blinded physician, who had no direct contact with these physicians, adjusted divalproex sodium dosage on the basis of reports from blinded raters and from confidential laboratory reports. Therefore, because the physician who controlled therapy knew which patients were receiving divalproex, the trial did not satisfy the criterion of concealed allocation.In Tariot 2001, 54% of the treated patients dropped out compared with 29% of control patients. Of all treated patients, 22% dropped out because of adverse effects, and the study had to be discontinued prematurely.The third trial (Sival 2002) had a cross-over design. No results from the first phase of the study were available, and although the statistical section stated, "the t-test for independent samples is used to analyse the two-period cross-over trial", because the samples were not independent - they are the same patients in the treatment and placebo groups - a question must be raised about the correctness of the analyses.The valproate preparation used in the trials varied - one used short-acting sodium valproate, one long-acting divalproex sodium, and the third early-onset acting divalproex sodium. Average doses differed (480 mg/d - 1000 mg/d), as did duration of therapy (3 weeks - 6 weeks), and ways of evaluating patients and their response to therapy.A limited meta-analysis, pooling the results concerning adverse effects (Porsteinsson 2001, Tariot 2001) revealed the following: sedation occurred more frequently in patients treated with valproic acid than in controls. Urinary tract infection was more common among patients treated with valproic acid than controls.An updated systematic review (October 2008) of two new studies (Tariot 2005, Herrmann 2007) applied meta-analysis to the effect of valproate on agitation in demented patients and also combined these studies with the earlier reports to examine adverse effects among valproate treated patients. Because the study of Herrmann et al involved a cross-over design, only those results from the first part of this study were included in the updated review.The new meta-analysis of pooled results showed no improvement of agitation among valproate treated patients, compared with controls, and showed an increase in adverse events (falls, infection, gastrointestinal disorders) among valproate treated patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The updated review corroborates the earlier findings that valproate preparations are ineffective in treating agitation among demented patients, and that valproate therapy is associated with an unacceptable rate of adverse effects. More research on the use of valproate preparations for agitation of people with dementia is needed. On the basis of current evidence, valproate therapy cannot be recommended for management of agitation in dementia.

Benzodiazepines for delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

Melatonin and bright-light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether the addition of melatonin to bright-light therapy enhances the efficacy in treating rest-activity (circadian) disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two nursing homes in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty subjects (mean age 86) with AD. INTERVENTION: Experimental subjects received 1 hour of morning light exposure (> or = 2,500 lux in gaze direction) Monday to Friday for 10 weeks and 5 mg melatonin (LM, n=16) or placebo (LP, n=17) in the evening. Control subjects (n=17) received usual indoor light (150-200 lux). MEASUREMENTS: Nighttime sleep variables, day sleep time, day activity, day:night sleep ratio, and rest-activity parameters were determined using actigraphy. RESULTS: Linear mixed models were employed to test the primary study hypotheses. No significant differences in nighttime sleep variables were found between groups. At the end of the intervention, the LM group showed significant improvement in daytime somnolence as indicated by a reduction in the duration of daytime sleep, an increase in daytime activity, and an improvement in day:night sleep ratio. The LM group also evidenced a significant increase in rest-activity rhythm amplitude and goodness of fit to the cosinor model. CONCLUSION: Light treatment alone did not improve nighttime sleep, daytime wake, or rest-activity rhythm. Light treatment plus melatonin increased daytime wake time and activity levels and strengthened the rest-activity rhythm. Future studies should resolve the question of whether these improvements can be attributed to melatonin or whether the two zeitgebers interact to amplify efficacy.

Light treatment for neuropsychiatric behaviors in Alzheimer's disease.

Neuropsychiatric behaviors are common in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and make both professional and lay caregiving difficult. Light therapy has been somewhat successful in ameliorating disruptive behaviors. This randomized trial tested the effects of morning or afternoon bright light exposure compared with usual indoor light on the presence, frequency, severity, and occupational disruptiveness of neuropsychiatric behaviors in nursing home residents with AD. Light was administered for 1 hr daily (Monday-Friday) for 10 weeks. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home was used to assess behavior at baseline and end of the intervention. Analyses revealed statistically significant differences between groups on agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, aberrant motor behavior, and appetite/eating disorders. The magnitude of change was small and may not represent clinically significant findings. Agitation/aggression and nighttime behaviors commonly occurred and were highly correlated with occupational disruptiveness. Interventions that decrease the presence and/or severity of neuropsychiatric behaviors have the potential to significantly decrease caregiver burden.

Effect of morning bright light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with severe Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Disturbances in rest-activity rhythm are prominent and disabling symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Nighttime sleep is severely fragmented and daytime activity is disrupted by multiple napping episodes. In most institutional environments, light levels are very low and may not be sufficient to enable the circadian clock to entrain to the 24-hour day. The purpose of this randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was to test the effectiveness of morning bright light therapy in reducing rest-activity (circadian) disruption in institutionalized patients with severe AD. METHOD: Subjects (n = 46, mean age 84 years) meeting the NINCDS-ADRDA (National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke--the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association) AD diagnostic criteria were recruited from two large, skilled nursing facilities in San Francisco, California. The experimental group received one hour (09:30-10:30) of bright light exposure (> or = 2500 lux in gaze direction) Monday through Friday for 10 weeks. The control group received usual indoor light (150-200 lux). Nighttime sleep efficiency, sleep time, wake time and number of awakenings and daytime wake time were assessed using actigraphy. Circadian rhythm parameters were also determined from the actigraphic data using cosinor analysis and nonparametric techniques. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the primary study hypotheses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Although significant improvements were found in subjects with aberrant timing of their rest-activity rhythm, morning bright light exposure did not induce an overall improvement in measures of sleep or the rest-activity in all treated as compared to control subjects. The results indicate that only subjects with the most impaired rest-activity rhythm respond significantly and positively to a brief (one hour) light intervention.

Effect of timed bright light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Disturbances in rest-activity rhythm are prominent and disabling symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Nighttime sleep is severely fragmented and daytime activity is disrupted by multiple napping episodes. In most institutional environments, light levels are very low and may not be sufficient to entrain the circadian clock to the 24-hour day. METHOD: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to test the effectiveness of timed bright light therapy in reducing rest-activity (circadian) disruption in institutionalized patients with AD. The experimental groups received either morning (9.30-10.30 am) or afternoon (3.30-4.30 pm) bright light exposure ( > or = 2500 lux in gaze direction) Monday through Friday for 10 weeks. The control group received usual indoor light (150-200 lux). Nighttime sleep, daytime wake, and rest-activity parameters were determined by actigraphy. Repeated measures analysis of variance was employed to test the primary study hypotheses. RESULTS: Seventy institutionalized subjects with AD (mean age 84) completed the study. No significant differences in actigraphy-based measures of nighttime sleep or daytime wake were found between groups. Subjects in either experimental light condition evidenced a significantly (p < 0.01) more stable rest-activity rhythm acrophase over the 10-week treatment period compared to the control subjects whose rhythm phase delayed by over two hours. CONCLUSIONS: One hour of bright light, administered to subjects with AD either in the morning or afternoon, did not improve nighttime sleep or daytime wake compared to a control group of similar subjects. However, exposure to one-hour of bright light in either the morning or afternoon may provide sufficient additional input to the circadian pacemaker to facilitate entrainment to the 24-hour day.

Psychiatric services in nursing homes in Israel: should the American legislation be adopted?

BACKGROUND: Nursing homes provide care for the elderly who require medical, nursing or rehabilitation services. Legislation for the public health model of mental health care for nursing home residents in the USA was enacted in 1987. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the USA act regulating psychiatric care for nursing homes may be applied in Israel. METHODS: Publications analyzing the outcome of the USA regulations demonstrate improved care as reflected by decrease in restraints and better use of psychotropic compounds. The shortcomings as well as benefits of the USA legislation are tested as to their relevance to the specific economic, environmental and medical issues in Israel. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of USA legal acts regulating nursing home residents' psychiatric care may not be feasible in Israel. However, quality of care in nursing homes can be significantly improved if such regulations were "tailored" to Israel's unique structure of nursing homes.