Clinical Complexity and Use of Antipsychotics and Restraints in Long-Term Care Residents with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and/or Parkinsonism are affected by a complex burden of comorbidity. Many ultimately require institutional care, where they may be subject to the application of physical restraints or the prescription of antipsychotic medications, making them more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are to: 1) describe the clinical complexity of older institutionalized persons with PD; and 2) examine patterns and predictors of restraint use and prescription of antipsychotics in this population. METHODS: Population-based cross-sectional cohort study. Residents with PD and/or Parkinsonism living in long-term care (LTC) facilities in 6 Canadian provinces and 1 Northern Territory and Complex Continuing Care (CCC) facilities in Manitoba and Ontario, Canada. The RAI MDS 2.0 instrument was used to assess all LTC residents and CCC residents. Clinical characteristics and the prevalence of major comorbidities were examined. Multivariate modeling was used to identify the characteristics of PD residents most associated with the prescription of antipsychotics and the use of restraints in LTC and CCC facilities. RESULTS: Residents with PD in LTC and CCC exhibit a high prevalence of dementia, major psychiatric disorders, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. More than 90% of LTC and CCC residents with PD had cognitive impairment; with more than half having moderate to severe impairment. Residents with PD were more likely to receive antipsychotics than those without PD. Antipsychotic use was associated with psychosis and aggressive behaviours, but also with unsteady gait and higher comorbidity and medication count. Similarly, although more common in CCC than LTC facilities, both psychosis and aggressive behaviours were associated with restraint use, as was greater cognitive and functional impairment, and urinary incontinence. Younger age, male gender, and lower physician access were all associated with greater antipsychotic and restraint use. CONCLUSIONS: LTC and CCC residents with PD are very complex medically. Use of antipsychotics and restraints is common, and their use is often associated with factors other than psychosis or aggression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".