Pharmacological Management of Agitation in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Evaluating Appropriateness and Standard Practices.

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lindsay Brooks, Samantha Sotelo, Alberto Augsten
{"title":"Pharmacological Management of Agitation in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Evaluating Appropriateness and Standard Practices.","authors":"Lindsay Brooks, Samantha Sotelo, Alberto Augsten","doi":"10.1177/87551225251394195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Agitation in hospitalized older adults is common and can increase the risk of harm, mechanical ventilation duration, and prolonged hospital stays. Diagnosing and managing agitation in geriatric patients is especially complex due to overlapping symptoms with other conditions, altered pharmacokinetics, and increased sensitivity to adverse effects. This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of pharmacologic interventions for acute agitation in elderly inpatients and identify areas for improvement. <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective chart review was conducted at a public hospital in South Florida for patients ≥65 years old admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2024, who received medications for agitation management. Appropriateness was determined using Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) scores, medication administration patterns, and restraint use. Effectiveness, documentation quality, and adverse events were also assessed. <b>Results</b>: Among 72 encounters from 54 patients, 50% were classified as appropriate based on alignment with SAS scores and clinical restraint use. Effectiveness, defined as ≤1 as-needed dose per day, was observed in 68.1% of cases. Restraint use was significantly associated with appropriateness (χ² = 23.63, <i>P</i> < 0.0001), and although paradoxical, inappropriate regimens were more often effective (χ² = 5.39, <i>P</i> = 0.0203). Adverse effects were documented in only 6.9% of cases, and complete documentation was present in 27.8% of encounters. <b>Conclusion</b>: Findings reveal inconsistencies in agitation management and documentation, with frequent overtreatment and underreporting. There is a clear need for standardized, geriatric-focused treatment protocols and improved documentation practices to optimize safety and effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":" ","pages":"87551225251394195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12668992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225251394195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Agitation in hospitalized older adults is common and can increase the risk of harm, mechanical ventilation duration, and prolonged hospital stays. Diagnosing and managing agitation in geriatric patients is especially complex due to overlapping symptoms with other conditions, altered pharmacokinetics, and increased sensitivity to adverse effects. This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of pharmacologic interventions for acute agitation in elderly inpatients and identify areas for improvement. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at a public hospital in South Florida for patients ≥65 years old admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2024, who received medications for agitation management. Appropriateness was determined using Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) scores, medication administration patterns, and restraint use. Effectiveness, documentation quality, and adverse events were also assessed. Results: Among 72 encounters from 54 patients, 50% were classified as appropriate based on alignment with SAS scores and clinical restraint use. Effectiveness, defined as ≤1 as-needed dose per day, was observed in 68.1% of cases. Restraint use was significantly associated with appropriateness (χ² = 23.63, P < 0.0001), and although paradoxical, inappropriate regimens were more often effective (χ² = 5.39, P = 0.0203). Adverse effects were documented in only 6.9% of cases, and complete documentation was present in 27.8% of encounters. Conclusion: Findings reveal inconsistencies in agitation management and documentation, with frequent overtreatment and underreporting. There is a clear need for standardized, geriatric-focused treatment protocols and improved documentation practices to optimize safety and effectiveness.

住院老年患者躁动的药理学管理:评估适当性和标准做法。
背景:住院老年人的躁动是常见的,可增加伤害风险、机械通气时间和延长住院时间。由于症状与其他疾病重叠、药代动力学改变以及对不良反应的敏感性增加,老年患者躁动的诊断和管理尤其复杂。本研究旨在评估老年住院患者急性躁动的药物干预的适宜性,并确定需要改进的领域。方法:对2024年1月1日至6月30日在南佛罗里达州一家公立医院接受躁动治疗的≥65岁患者进行回顾性图表分析。通过镇静-躁动量表(SAS)评分、给药模式和约束使用来确定适当性。还评估了有效性、文献质量和不良事件。结果:在54例患者的72次接触中,50%的患者根据SAS评分和临床约束使用被分类为合适。68.1%的病例观察到有效性,定义为每天≤1剂量。约束使用与适当性显著相关(χ²= 23.63,P < 0.0001),尽管矛盾,但不适当的方案往往更有效(χ²= 5.39,P = 0.0203)。只有6.9%的病例记录了不良反应,27.8%的病例有完整的记录。结论:研究结果显示躁动管理和文件不一致,经常出现过度治疗和漏报。显然需要标准化的、以老年人为重点的治疗方案和改进的文件实践,以优化安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书