Insights into patient characteristics and documentation of the use of sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytics in primary care: a retrospective chart review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the known safety risks of long-term use of sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic medications, there has been limited guidance for the safe and effective use of their chronic use in a primary care clinic setting. Understanding the characteristics of patients who receive sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic medication and the clinical documentation process in primary care is the first step towards understanding the nature of the problem and will help inform future strategies for clinical research and practice. OBJECTIVES: Characterize patients who received a sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic prescription in primary care, and (2) gain an understanding of the clinical documentation of sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic indication and monitoring in electronic medical records (EMR). METHODS: A random selection of patients who received a prescription for a benzodiazepine or Z-drug hypnotic between January 2014 and August 2016 from four primary care clinics in Winnipeg were included. Data was collected retrospectively using the EMR (Accuro®). Patient variables recorded included sex, age, comorbidities, medications, smoking status, and alcohol status. Treatment variables included drug type, indication, pattern of use, dose, adverse events, psychosocial intervention, tapering attempts, social support, life stressor, and monitoring parameters for sedative-hypnotic use. Demographic and clinical characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Records from a sample of 200 primary care patients prescribed sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytics were analyzed (mean age 55.8 years old, 61.5% ≥ 65 years old, 61.0% female). Long-term chronic use (≥ 1 year) of a sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic agent was observed in 29.5% of the sample. Zopiclone (30.7%) and lorazepam (28.7%) were the most common agents prescribed. Only 9.5% of patients had documentation of a past tapering attempt of their sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic. The most common indications for sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic use recorded were anxiety (33.0%) and sleep (18.0%), but indication was undetermined for 57.0% of patients. Depression (33.5%) and falls (18.5%) were reported by patients after the initiation of these agents. CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of females and users 65 years and older received a prescription for a sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic, consistent with previous studies on sedative-hypnotic use. We found inconsistencies in the documentation surrounding sedative-hypnotic/anxiolytic use. The indication for their use was unclear in a large number of patients. These findings will help us understand the state of the problem in primary care and inform future strategies for clinical research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".