OBJECTIVES: To examine laxative use by individuals in hospice who were taking opioids during the last week of life. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. SETTING: 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals in hospice aged 65 and older who were taking opioids during the last week of life (N = 2,825). MEASUREMENTS: Hospice staff were asked the names of all medications and drugs that participants were taking 7 days before and on the day of death while in hospice, including any standing, routine, or as-needed medications." Medications "used" included medications taken and as-needed medications provided in case a symptom developed. Opioids included all opioid-combination drugs. Laxatives included fibers, lubricants, stimulants, and suppositories. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of participants had cancer as the primary hospice diagnosis, 13% heart disease, 12% debility, 11% dementia, 8% lung disease, and 15% other. Overall, 52% of opioid users used a laxative in the last week of life; the proportions of opioid and laxative users did not differ according to diagnosis. Racial minorities taking opioids had lower odds than white participants (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.33-0.99) of using laxatives. Participants taking opioids enrolled in hospice for 7 days or less had lower odds of using laxatives than those enrolled for more than 7 days (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.37-0.95), as did those in hospice inpatient, hospital, or other settings (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.43-0.93) than those in long-term care settings. Participants using five or fewer medications had lower odds of using laxatives than those using six to 10 (OR = 6.01, 95% CI = 3.88-9.32) or 11 to 25 medications (OR = 13.80, 95% CI = 8.74-21.80). CONCLUSION: In 2007, slightly more than half of older adults in hospice who were taking opioids used laxatives during the last week of life. Recent quality indicators from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommend laxative treatment when opioid therapy is initiated to prevent opioid-induced constipation and are intended to improve laxative use in individuals in hospice treated with opioids.

OBJECTIVES: To describe medications that older adults in hospice with cancer, dementia, debility, heart disease, and lung disease take during the last week of life. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationally representative sample of 695 U.S. hospices in the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older with a primary diagnosis of cancer (49%), dementia (12%), debility (14%), heart disease (16%), or lung disease (10%) who received end-of-life care during their last week of life (N = 2,623). MEASUREMENTS: Medication data were obtained from hospice staff, who were asked, "What are the names of all the medications and drugs the patient was taking 7 days prior to and on the day of his or her death while in hospice? Please include any standing, routine, or PRN medications." RESULTS: The unweighted survey response rate was 71%. The average number of medications taken was 10.2. The most common therapeutic classes were analgesics (98%); antiemetic and antivertigo medications (78%); anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics (76%); anticonvulsants (71%); and laxatives (53%). Approximately one-quarter of the individuals took proton pump inhibitors, anticoagulants, and antidepressants, and fewer than 20% took antacids and antibiotics. A smaller percentage of individuals with dementia and debility than of those with cancer took opioid analgesics. Individuals with heart disease were more likely than individuals in the other clinical cohorts to take diuretics, and those with lung disease were more likely than those in the other clinical cohorts to take bronchodilators. A higher percentage of individuals with dementia and with debility than with cancer and lung disease took antidepressants. CONCLUSION: People continue to receive disease-focused therapies at the end of life rather than therapies exclusively for palliation of symptoms, suggesting that treatments may vary according to the person's primary diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate infection prevalence and explore associated risk factors in nursing home (NH) residents, individuals receiving home health care (HHC), and individuals receiving hospice care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Nationally representative samples of 1,174 U.S. NHs in the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS) and 1,036 U.S. HHC and hospice agencies in the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey (NHHCS). PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 12,270 NH residents, 4,394 individuals receiving HHC, and 4,410 individuals receiving hospice care. MEASUREMENTS: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes were used to identify the presence of infection, including community-acquired infection and those acquired during earlier healthcare exposures. RESULTS: Unweighted response rates were 78% for the 2004 NHHS and 67% for the 2007 NHHCS. Approximately 12% of NH residents and 12% of individuals receiving HHC had an infection at the time of the survey interview, and more than 10% of individuals receiving hospice care had an infection when discharged from hospice care. The most common infections were urinary tract infection (3.0-5.2%), pneumonia (2.2-4.4%), and cellulitis (1.6-2.0%). Short length of care and recent inpatient stay in a healthcare facility were associated with infections in all three populations. Taking 10 or more medications and urinary catheter exposure were significant in two of these three long-term care populations. CONCLUSION: Infection prevalence in HHC, hospice, and NH populations is similar. Although these infections may be community acquired or acquired during earlier healthcare exposures, these findings fill an important gap in understanding the national infection burden and may help inform future research on infection epidemiology and prevention strategies in long-term care populations.

We read with interest the study by Bao and colleagues examining the use of Beers-defined potentially inappropriate medications among older patients receiving home health care (HHC) services in the United States.1 Ensuring proper medication use especially in older adults remains a public health priority, and the authors argue that HHC patients may be at high risk for using ineffective or unsafe medications likely due to their often complex medication regimens and multiple physician prescribers. The study analyzes the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey (NHHCS), a nationally representative survey of U.S. home health and hospice care agencies that collected data on current HHC patients and hospice care discharges.2 Bao and colleagues restricted their analysis to HHC patients who were age 65 or older and used at least one medication (n = 3,124). The authors, however, did not differentiate between patients receiving and patients not receiving end-of-life (EOL) care. According to NHHCS, we calculated that 15% (weighted) of HHC patients in their study had a medical prognosis indicating a six-month-or-less life expectancy and received “palliative, end of life, or terminal care instead of active or curative treatment.” | It is important for the Bao et al. study to distinguish between HHC patients who did and who did not receive EOL care. While the 2003 Beers list is commonly used to define medications to avoid among older patients3 (albeit not without controversy), there is no clear consensus about which medications are unsuitable for older patients receiving EOL care. The validity of the Beers list as a prescribing quality indicator to assess EOL treatment is disputable in principle and evidence.4 Research has argued that short-acting benzodiazepines, gastrointestinal antispasmodics, anticholinergics, and antihistamines that are on the Beers list may be clinically appropriate for older patients receiving EOL care whose goal of care is to manage pain and other distressing symptoms.5 Furthermore, although long half-life benzodiazepines generally should be avoided in older patients according to Beers, withdrawing a long half-life benzodiazepine may pose unnecessary, significant risk for major withdrawal symptoms in older patients receiving EOL care.6 Consequently, the examination of inappropriate medication use among HHC patients without differentiating between those receiving and those not receiving EOL care raises concerns about the Bao et al. study findings and their suggested policy and practice implications. In general, applying the Beers list to examine medication appropriateness in older adults should be performed judiciously in settings where EOL care is provided.

OBJECTIVES: To document the extent and appropriateness of use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines among nursing home residents using a nationally representative survey. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined relationships between resident and facility characteristics and antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use by appropriateness classification among residents aged 60 years and older (N = 12,090). Resident diagnoses and information about behavioral problems were used to categorize antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use as appropriate, potentially appropriate, or having no appropriate indication. RESULTS: More than one quarter (26%) of nursing home residents used an antipsychotic medication, 40% of whom had no appropriate indication for such use. Among the 13% of residents who took benzodiazepines, 42% had no appropriate indication. In adjusted analyses, the odds of residents taking an antipsychotic without an appropriate indication were highest for residents with diagnoses of depression (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.53), dementia (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.52-2.18), and with behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.56-2.50). The odds of potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use increased as the percentage of Medicaid residents in a facility increased (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15) and decreased as the percentage of Medicare residents increased (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.83). The odds of taking a benzodiazepine without an appropriate indication were highest among residents who were female (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18-1.75), white (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.47-2.60), and had behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.69; 95% CI: 1.41-2.01). CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics and benzodiazepines seem to be commonly prescribed to residents lacking an appropriate indication for their use.

OBJECTIVES: This methods report provides an overview of the redesigned National Home and Hospice Care Survey (NHHCS) conducted in 2007. NHHCS is a national probability sample survey that collects data on U.S. home health and hospice care agencies, their staffs and services, and the people they serve. The redesigned survey included computerized data collection, greater survey content, increased sample sizes for current home health care patients and hospice care discharges, and a first-ever supplemental survey called the National Home Health Aide Survey. METHODS: The 2007 NHHCS was conducted between August 2007 and February 2008. NHHCS used a two-stage probability sampling design in which agencies providing home health and/or hospice care were sampled. Then, up to 10 current patients were sampled from each home health care agency, up to 10 discharges from each hospice care agency, and a combination of up to 10 patients/discharges from each agency that provided both home health and hospice care services. In-person interviews were conducted with agency directors and their designated staff; no interviews were conducted directly with patients. The survey instrument contained agency- and person-level modules, sampling modules, and a self-administered staffing questionnaire. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1036 agencies, 4683 current home health care patients, and 4733 hospice care discharges. The first-stage agency weighted response rate (for differential probabilities of selection) was 59%. The second-stage patient/discharge weighted response rate was 96%. Three public-use files were released: an agency-level file, a patient/discharge-level file, and a medication file. The files include sampling weights, which are necessary to generate national estimates, and design variables to enable users to calculate accurate standard errors.

Infection is one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality among nursing home residents.1 | Inappropriate antimicrobial use may have negative effects on resident health, | including the potential for adverse drug reactions. A position | paper on antimicrobial use in nursing home facilities by the | Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America has recommended the monitoring of antimicrobial prescribing and | the linking of use data with infection surveillance data.2 | Previous investigations have examined aspects of antimicrobial prescribing in nursing homes, including use in patients with advanced dementia,3 | in 4 geographically diverse | states,4 | and in 53 facilities in Maryland.5 | However, few studies | have assessed use in a nationally representative sample. The | purpose of this investigation was to assess both the prevalence | and the types of antimicrobial use in a nationally representative sample of nursing home residents

Background: Despite the need for and benefits of medications, polypharmacy (defined here as concurrent use of ≥9 medications) in nursing home residents is a concern. As the number of medications taken increases, so does the risk for adverse events. Monitoring polypharmacy in this population is important and can improve the quality of nursing home care. Objectives: The aims of this article were to estimate the use of polypharmacy in residents of nursing homes in the United States, to examine the associations between select resident and facility characteristics and polypharmacy, and to determine the leading therapeutic subclasses included in the polypharmacy received by these nursing home residents. Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of US nursing home residents in 2004; the outcome was use of polypharmacy. The 2004 National Nursing Home Survey was used to collect medication data and other resident and facility information. Resident characteristics included age, sex, race, primary payment source, number of comorbidities, number of activities of daily living (ADLs) for which the resident required assistance, and length of stay (LOS) since admission. Facility characteristics included ownership and size (number of beds). Results: Of 13,507 nursing home residents who received care, 13,403 had valid responses for all 9 independent variables in the analyses. The prevalence of polypharmacy among nursing home residents in 2004 was ~40%. A multiple regression model controlling for resident and facility factors revealed that the odds of receiving polypharmacy were higher for residents who were female (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20), were white, had Medicaid as a primary payer, had >3 comorbidities (OR = 1.57-5.18; 95% CI, 1.36-6.15), needed assistance with <4 ADLs, had an LOS since admission of 3 to <6 months (OR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50), and received care in a small, not- for-profit facility (data not shown for reference levels [OR = 1.00]). The most frequently reported medications for residents who received polypharmacy included gastrointestinal agents (laxatives, 47.5%; agents for acid/peptic disorders, 43.3%), drugs that affect the central nervous system (antidepressants, 46.3%; antipsychotics or antimanics, 25.9%), and pain relievers (nonnarcotic analgesics, 43.6%; antipyretics, 41.2%; antiarthritics, 31.2%). Conclusions: Despite awareness of polypharmacy and its potential consequences in older patients, results of our analysis suggest that polypharmacy remains widespread in US nursing homes. Although complex medication regimens are often necessary for nursing home residents, monitoring polypharmacy and its consequences may improve the quality of nursing home care and reduce unnecessary health care spending related to adverse events.