Spore D, Mor V, Larrat E P, Hiris J, Hawes C
Center for Gerontology and Health Care Research, Brown University, USA.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1996 May;51(3):M131-41. doi: 10.1093/gerona/51a.3.m131.
Largely unsupervised administration of drugs and the potential for overuse of psychotropic agents in residential care facilities have emerged as major public policy concerns. In a large multistate study, we examined patterns of psychotropic prescription and use by facility licensure status and the extensiveness of state regulations.
Descriptive analyses were based on a sample of 2,949 residents from 493 board-and-care facilities in 10 states, drawn via a complex, multistage sampling design. States were purposively selected based on the stringency of their board-and-care regulatory system, and samples of facilities were drawn, stratified by licensure status and home size. Residents were randomly selected within the sampled facilities. Weighted analyses were performed with Software for Survey Data Analysis (SUDAAN), accounting for the complex sampling design.
Approximately 43% of the residents were prescribed and 41% used at least one psychotropic agent, primarily on a routinely scheduled basis. Antipsychotics were prescribed to 22% and used by 21%; antidepressants were prescribed to 17% and taken by 16%; antimanic agents were prescribed to and used by 4%; and anxiolytics, sedatives, or hypnotics were prescribed to 17% and used by 14%. Among psychotropic users, over 50% had not had mental health services in the prior year; 25% had no psychiatric history. Among licensed facilities, prescription and use of psychotropics, particularly antipsychotics, was significantly higher among residents of homes located in states with limited regulatory systems.
Results revealed high rates of psychotropic prescription and use, and not inconsequential levels of polypharmacy - within and across therapeutic classes - among board-and-care facility residents. Frequently, psychotropics were not used as an adjunct to alternative treatments, and were not associated with a psychiatric history. Extent of psychotropic use was related to the regulatory environment, suggesting that more extensive regulations and monitoring may reduce psychoactive drug use in board-and-care facilities, and more adequately ensure the appropriateness of such treatment.
在寄宿护理机构中,药物管理在很大程度上缺乏监督,且存在精神药物过度使用的可能性,这已成为重大的公共政策问题。在一项大型的多州研究中,我们根据机构的执照状态以及州法规的详尽程度,对精神药物的处方和使用模式进行了研究。
描述性分析基于通过复杂的多阶段抽样设计从10个州的493家寄宿护理机构中抽取的2949名居民样本。根据寄宿护理监管系统的严格程度有目的地选择各州,并抽取机构样本,按执照状态和机构规模分层。在抽取的机构中随机选择居民。使用调查数据分析软件(SUDAAN)进行加权分析,以考虑复杂的抽样设计。
约43%的居民被开具了精神药物处方,41%的居民使用了至少一种精神药物,主要是按常规疗程使用。22%的居民被开具了抗精神病药物处方,21%的居民使用了抗精神病药物;17%的居民被开具了抗抑郁药物处方,16%的居民服用了抗抑郁药物;4%的居民被开具并使用了抗躁狂药物;17%的居民被开具了抗焦虑药、镇静剂或催眠药,14%的居民使用了这些药物。在使用精神药物的居民中,超过50%的人在前一年没有接受过心理健康服务;25%的人没有精神病史。在有执照的机构中,位于监管系统有限的州的机构居民中,精神药物的处方和使用,尤其是抗精神病药物的使用,明显更高。
结果显示,寄宿护理机构居民中精神药物的处方率和使用率很高,而且在不同治疗类别内和不同治疗类别之间存在不可忽视的联合用药情况。通常,精神药物并非作为替代治疗的辅助手段使用,且与精神病史无关。精神药物的使用程度与监管环境有关,这表明更广泛的法规和监测可能会减少寄宿护理机构中精神活性药物的使用,并更充分地确保此类治疗的适当性。