4.5 Article

Can psychiatric liaison reduce neuroleptic use and reduce health service utilization for dementia patients residing in care facilities

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 140-145

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/gps.543

Keywords

behaviour; dementia; liaison; neuroleptics; care facilities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The quality of care and overuse of neuroleptic medication in care environments are major issues in the care of elderly people with dementia. Method The quality of care (Dementia Care Mapping), the severity of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms (BPSD-Neuropsychiatric Inventory), expressive language skills (Sheffield Acquired Language Disorder scale), service utilization and use of neuroleptic drugs was compared over 9 months between six care facilities receiving a psychiatric liaison service and three facilities receiving the usual clinical support, using a single blind design. Results There was a significant reduction in neuroleptic usage in the facilities receiving the liaison service (McNemar test p < 0.0001), but not amongst those receiving standard clinical support (McNemar test p = 0.07). There were also significantly less GP contacts (t = 3.9 p = 0.0001) for residents in the facilities receiving the liaison service, and a three fold reduction in psychiatric in-patient bed usage (Bed days per person 0.6 vs. 1.5). Residents in care facilities receiving the liaison service experienced significantly less deterioration in expressive language skills (t = 2.2 p = 0.03), but there were no significant differences in BPSD or wellbeing. Conclusion A resource efficient psychiatric liaison service can reduce neuroleptic drug use and reduce some aspects of health service utilization; but a more extensive intervention is probably required to improve the overall quality of care. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available