Flora M Hammond1, Ryan S Barrett2, Timothy Shea3, Ronald T Seel4, Thomas W McAlister5, Darryl Kaelin6, David K Ryser7, John D Corrigan3, Nora Cullen8, Susan D Horn2. 1. Carolinas Rehabilitation, Charlotte, NC; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. Electronic address: flora.hammond@rhin.com. 2. Institute for Clinical Outcomes Research, Salt Lake City, UT. 3. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 4. Crawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, GA. 5. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. 6. University of Louisville School of Medicine and Frazier Rehabilitation Institute, Louisville, KY. 7. Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT. 8. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe psychotropic medication administration patterns during inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their relation to patient preinjury and injury characteristics. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Multiple acute inpatient rehabilitation units or hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with TBI (N=2130; complicated mild, moderate, or severe) admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Most frequently administered were narcotic analgesics (72% of sample), followed by antidepressants (67%), anticonvulsants (47%), anxiolytics (33%), hypnotics (30%), stimulants (28%), antipsychotics (25%), antiparkinson agents (25%), and miscellaneous psychotropics (18%). The psychotropic agents studied were administered to 95% of the sample, with 8.5% receiving only 1 and 31.8% receiving ≥6. Degree of psychotropic medication administration varied widely between sites. Univariate analyses indicated younger patients were more likely to receive anxiolytics, antidepressants, antiparkinson agents, stimulants, antipsychotics, and narcotic analgesics, whereas those older were more likely to receive anticonvulsants and miscellaneous psychotropics. Men were more likely to receive antipsychotics. All medication classes were less likely administered to Asians and more likely administered to those with more severe functional impairment. Use of anticonvulsants was associated with having seizures at some point during acute care or rehabilitation stays. Narcotic analgesics were more likely for those with history of drug abuse, history of anxiety and depression (premorbid or during acute care), and severe pain during rehabilitation. Psychotropic medication administration increased rather than decreased during the course of inpatient rehabilitation in each of the medication categories except for narcotics. This observation was also true for medication administration within admission functional levels (defined by cognitive FIM scores), except for those with higher admission FIM cognitive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Many psychotropic medications are used during inpatient rehabilitation. In general, lower admission FIM cognitive score groups were administered more of the medications under investigation compared with those with higher cognitive function at admission. Considerable site variation existed regarding medications administered. The current investigation provides baseline data for future studies of effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To describe psychotropic medication administration patterns during inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their relation to patient preinjury and injury characteristics. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Multiple acute inpatient rehabilitation units or hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with TBI (N=2130; complicated mild, moderate, or severe) admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Most frequently administered were narcotic analgesics (72% of sample), followed by antidepressants (67%), anticonvulsants (47%), anxiolytics (33%), hypnotics (30%), stimulants (28%), antipsychotics (25%), antiparkinson agents (25%), and miscellaneous psychotropics (18%). The psychotropic agents studied were administered to 95% of the sample, with 8.5% receiving only 1 and 31.8% receiving ≥6. Degree of psychotropic medication administration varied widely between sites. Univariate analyses indicated younger patients were more likely to receive anxiolytics, antidepressants, antiparkinson agents, stimulants, antipsychotics, and narcotic analgesics, whereas those older were more likely to receive anticonvulsants and miscellaneous psychotropics. Men were more likely to receive antipsychotics. All medication classes were less likely administered to Asians and more likely administered to those with more severe functional impairment. Use of anticonvulsants was associated with having seizures at some point during acute care or rehabilitation stays. Narcotic analgesics were more likely for those with history of drug abuse, history of anxiety and depression (premorbid or during acute care), and severe pain during rehabilitation. Psychotropic medication administration increased rather than decreased during the course of inpatient rehabilitation in each of the medication categories except for narcotics. This observation was also true for medication administration within admission functional levels (defined by cognitive FIM scores), except for those with higher admission FIM cognitive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Many psychotropic medications are used during inpatient rehabilitation. In general, lower admission FIM cognitive score groups were administered more of the medications under investigation compared with those with higher cognitive function at admission. Considerable site variation existed regarding medications administered. The current investigation provides baseline data for future studies of effectiveness.
Authors: W Jerry Mysiw; Jennifer A Bogner; John D Corrigan; Lisa P Fugate; Daniel M Clinchot; Vivek Kadyan Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Deborah L Warden; Barry Gordon; Thomas W McAllister; Jonathan M Silver; Jeffery T Barth; John Bruns; Angela Drake; Tony Gentry; Andy Jagoda; Douglas I Katz; Jess Kraus; Lawrence A Labbate; Laurie M Ryan; Molly B Sparling; Beverly Walters; John Whyte; Ashley Zapata; George Zitnay Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: David K Ryser; Marlene J Egger; Susan D Horn; Diana Handrahan; Partha Gandhi; Erin D Bigler Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jesse R Fann; Charles H Bombardier; Nancy Temkin; Peter Esselman; Catherine Warms; Jason Barber; Sureyya Dikmen Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Flora M Hammond; Jessica Ketchum; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; John D Corrigan; Cate Miller; Juliet Haarbauer-Krupa; Mark Faul; Lance E Trexler; Cynthia Harrison-Felix Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Rim M Hadgu; Amne Borghol; Christopher Gillard; Candice Wilson; Suzan Elqess Mossa; Megan McKay; Charles Jastram; Ifeanyi O Onor Journal: Hosp Pharm Date: 2020-05-17
Authors: Susan D Horn; John D Corrigan; Cynthia L Beaulieu; Jennifer Bogner; Ryan S Barrett; Clare G Giuffrida; David K Ryser; Kelli Cooper; Deborah M Carroll; Daniel Deutscher Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Risa Nakase-Richardson; Marie N Dahdah; Emily Almeida; Peter Ricketti; Marc A Silva; Karel Calero; Ulysses Magalang; Daniel J Schwartz Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: David R Williamson; Anne Julie Frenette; Lisa Burry; Marc M Perreault; Emmanuel Charbonney; François Lamontagne; Marie-Julie Potvin; Jean-François Giguère; Sangeeta Mehta; Francis Bernard Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2016-11-17