MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132931094

Prescription Sedative Use in Older Adults After Critical Illness

2023· dissertation· W7132931094 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Denise Burry

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionSedativeObservational studyCritical illnessAdverse effectSedative/hypnoticIntensive care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year, hundreds of thousands of Canadians experience critical illness and are admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), most of whom are older adults. While admitted to ICUs, many patients receive medications such as benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics, or antipsychotics for sedation-agitation management. As patients transition out of the ICU, newly initiated sedatives are sometimes continued on hospital discharge. However, sedatives are often unnecessary and considered potentially inappropriate medications for community-dwelling older adults due to their association with serious adverse events. This thesis sought to assess, among sedative-naïve older adults hospitalized with critical illness, the incidence, trends, risk factors, and adverse events associated with new sedative prescriptions post-hospital discharge. This thesis contains three observational studies conducted using population-based administrative data for Ontario, Canada (2003 to 2019). Study one found that more than 5% of patients filled sedative prescriptions within seven days post-discharge, with an increased rate for those with ICU admission compared to those hospitalized without ICU. More than half of these new users filled persistent prescriptions within the six months post-discharge. Overall, the proportion of patients who filled sedative prescriptions post-discharge significantly decreased since 2003, with a dramatic reduction in benzodiazepines, especially among those with ICU admission. However, non-benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic prescriptions have increased since 2003. Study two found that the factors strongly associated with sedative prescriptions post-discharge among ICU survivors were transfer to long-term care, geriatric or psychiatric consultation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. The proportion of ICU survivors who filled sedative prescriptions post-discharge varied widely across hospitals, suggesting potentially modifiable prescription practices. Study three found that among ICU survivors, new sedative prescriptions were associated with increased hazards of fall or fracture, return to the emergency department, rehospitalization, and death within 30 days post-discharge. The hazard of each adverse event varied by sedative class. Collectively, these results suggest that careful medication review before and after discharge with consideration of the risk-benefit of the class prescribed if sedative pharmacotherapy is indicated will likely be impactful to ICU survivors and the healthcare system, given the number of patients receiving such medications, and the safety implications for these older patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→