A Sleep Education and Hypnotics Reduction Program for Hospitalized Patients at a General Hospital

Is the Current Lights-Off Time in General Hospitals Too Early, Given People's Usual Bedtimes?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate how shift-working nursing professionals perceive the current lights-off time in wards as early, appropriate, or late and how their perceptions can be influenced when considering people's usual bedtimes.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted comprising queries about the current lights-off time in wards and respondents' opinions, self-rated psychological status, and perceptions of the current lights-off time considering others' usual bedtimes. Psychological status was evaluated using the Insomnia Severity Index, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep-16, and the Discrepancy between Desired Time in Bed and Desired Total Sleep Time (DBST) Index, along with the expected DBST Index of others.

RESULTS

Of 159 nursing professionals, 88.7% regarded the current lights-off time of 9:46±0:29 PM as appropriate. However, when considering others' usual bedtimes, the proportion perceiving the lights-off time as too early rose from 6.9% to 28.3%. Participants recommended delaying the lights-off time to 10:06±0:42 PM for patients' sleep and 10.22±0:46 PM for nursing care activities. Nursing professionals' insomnia severity was significantly higher among who responded that current light off time is too early after considering usual bedtime of other people.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the need to reassess lights-off times in wards given individuals' typical bedtimes. The findings emphasize the need to address nursing professionals' perspectives and insomnia severity when optimizing lights-off schedules in healthcare settings.

Reducing the use of sleep-inducing drugs during hospitalisation by a multi-faceted intervention: a pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Many patients receive benzodiazepines or Z-drugs during hospitalisation due to sleeping problems. In a pilot study, we aimed to find out whether, and to what degree, a multi-faceted intervention can reduce the use of these drugs, especially in older patients and those without a psychiatric or neurological disorder. The results of this pilot study should inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

In a quasi-experimental design, we implemented the intervention in a German hospital with the support of the hospital director, medical and nursing staff and employee representatives. We compared prescription data for sleep-inducing drugs before and after the intervention by Fisher's exact test and used odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% CIs as a measure of effect size.

RESULTS

The data from 960 patients aged ≥65 years before intervention and 1049 patients after intervention were analysed. Before intervention, 483 (50.3%) of the patients received sleep-inducing drugs at some time during their hospital stay. After the intervention, 381 (36.3%) patients received a sleep-inducing drug, resulting in an OR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.68) (p<0.001). The reduction was particularly pronounced in patients without a psychiatric or neurological disorder (from 45.0% to 28.8%). In particular, the consumption of benzodiazepines declined from 24.3% to 8.5% (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.4) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-faceted intervention to change the practice of the use of sleep-inducing drugs in one hospital was successful in terms of drug reduction, particularly for benzodiazepines. The intervention was effective especially for target persons-that is, those without a psychiatric or neurological disease. Awareness of the magnitude of the change and the role of important stakeholders could help researchers and hospital staff to design a large RCT, including control hospitals, to evaluate the success of a multi-faceted intervention on a scientifically sound basis.

Environmental scan of current strategies to decrease sedative-hypnotic drug use and promote sleep in hospital patients

BACKGROUND

Sedative-hypnotic drugs are often initiated in hospital to manage insomnia and anxiety. Guidelines discourage their use, particularly in older adults, due to risks of falls, fractures, and delirium.

AIM

To identify publicly available resources to decrease the use of sedative-hypnotic drugs and promote sleep in hospital.

METHOD

An advanced Google search with 6 search strategies was conducted. Key websites were also identified and searched. Hospital- or community-based resources using non-pharmacologic measures to reduce sedative-hypnotic drug use and/or to promote sleep were included if they were publicly available in English within the past 5 years. Full text screening and data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers; a third reviewer resolved disagreements by consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 79 resources met inclusion criteria, with 65 (82.3%) providing education and 31 (39.2%) describing sleep hygiene strategies. Other resources included deprescribing (17, 21.5%), relaxation training (13, 16.5%), cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (9, 11.4%), and policies (7, 8.9%). The resources primarily targeted patients (59, 74.7%) followed by healthcare providers (9, 11.4%). There were 9 resources (11.4%) that applied to both community and hospital settings, and another 2 (2.5%) designed specifically for hospital.

CONCLUSION

Many resources were available to patients and healthcare providers to reduce inappropriate or ineffective use of sedative-hypnotic drugs and promote better sleep. Specific resources for the hospital setting were infrequent and recommended that clinicians stop hospital-initiated sedatives when patients are discharged. Identified resources can be adapted by healthcare organizations to develop sedative-hypnotic prescribing programs and policies.

Reducing Sedative-Hypnotics Among Hospitalized Patients: a Multi-centered Study

BACKGROUND

Sedative-hypnotics are frequently prescribed for insomnia in hospital but are associated with preventable harms.

OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS

We aimed to examine whether a sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle decreases the rate of sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalized patients, who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. This interrupted time series study occurred between May 2016 and January 2019. Control data for 1 year prior to implementation and intervention data for at least 16 months were collected. The study occurred on 7 inpatient wards (general medicine, cardiology, nephrology, general surgery, and cardiovascular surgery wards) across 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada.

INTERVENTION

Participating wards implemented a sedative-hypnotic reduction bundle (i.e., order set changes, audit-feedback, pharmacist-enabled medication reviews, sleep hygiene, daily sleep huddles, and staff/patient/family education) aimed to reduce in-hospital sedative-hypnotic initiation for insomnia in patients who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. Each inpatient ward adapted the bundle prior to sustaining the intervention for a minimum of 16 months.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sedative-hypnotic-naïve inpatients newly prescribed a sedative-hypnotic for sleep in hospital. Secondary measures include prescribing rates of other sedating medications, fall rates, length of stay, and mortality.

KEY RESULTS

We included 8,970 patient discharges in the control period and 10,120 in the intervention period. Adjusted sedative-hypnotic prescriptions among naïve patients decreased from 15.48% (95% CI: 6.09-19.42) to 9.08% (p<0.001) (adjusted OR 0.814; 95% CI: 0.667-0.993, p=0.042). Unchanged secondary outcomes included mortality (adjusted OR 1.089; 95% CI: 0.786-1.508, p=0.608), falls (adjusted rate ratio 0.819; 95% CI: 0.625-1.073, p=0.148), or other sedating drug prescriptions (adjusted OR 1.046; 95% CI: 0.873-1.252, p=0.627).

CONCLUSIONS

A sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle implemented across 5 hospitals was associated with a sustained reduction in sedative-hypnotic prescriptions.

Interventions to reduce benzodiazepine and sedative-hypnotic drug use in acute care hospitals: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotic drugs (BZD/SHD) are commonly utilized in the acute care setting for insomnia and anxiety and are associated with cognitive impairment, falls, and fractures. Interventions to reduce use of BZD/SHD in hospitals are not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to conduct a scoping review to identify and characterize interventions to reduce the use of BZD/SHD by adults in the acute care setting.

METHODS

English language studies and abstracts that described an intervention to reduce BZD/SHD in adult hospital patients were included. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched up to July 2018 and updated to February 3, 2021. The grey literature (Opengrey, Grey Matters, Google Advanced) was searched up to July 2018. Titles and abstracts were screened and full-text articles were reviewed and charted by three independent reviewers. Stakeholders were consulted to inform the scoping review and collect perspectives on the findings.

RESULTS

There were 13,046 records identified and 43 studies included. The most common study designs were uncontrolled before and after (23/43, 53.5%) and randomized controlled trials (7/43, 16.3%). The majority of studies tested a single intervention (32/43, 74.4%) such as education, deprescribing, relaxation training and sleep protocols. Patients were frequently the target of relaxation training and behavior change interventions; while sleep protocols, multifaceted interventions, education and deprescribing were usually directed at healthcare providers, either alone or in combination with patients. Most studies reported positive results in decreasing BZD/SHD use (27/43, 62.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review found a variety of interventions to decrease the utilization of BZD/SHD in hospitals. Multifaceted interventions aimed at patients and healthcare providers that include a combination of education, sleep protocols, and deprescribing may support reductions in BZD/SHD use. Stakeholders also recommended policy and system changes such as computer alerts due to feasibility and workload.

Point Prevalence Survey of Benzodiazepine and Sedative-Hypnotic Drug Use in Hospitalized Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotic drugs (BZD/SHDs), such as zopiclone and the antidepressant trazodone, pose risks such as falls, fractures, and confusion, especially for older adults. Use of these drugs in the acute care setting is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the point prevalence and characteristics of use of BZD/SHDs in hospitals in Nova Scotia, Canada.

METHODS

A point prevalence survey was conducted for adults admitted to all hospitals with at least 30 acute care beds between May and August 2016. Drugs administered intravenously, patients in long-term care, and patients receiving mental health services, addiction treatment, or critical care were excluded. The proportion of included patients who had received a BZD/SHD within the 24 h before the start of the survey was determined. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall BZD/SHD prevalence was 34.6% (487/1409) across the 16 eligible hospitals. The average age was 70.3 years, and 150 (30.8%) of the patients were 80 years or older. Among the 585 prescriptions for these patients, commonly used drugs were zopiclone (32.0%), lorazepam (21.9%), and trazodone (21.9%). The most common indications for use were bedtime/daytime sedation (60.0%) and anxiety (12.5%). More than half of the prescriptions (55.7%) had been initiated at home, 37.6% were started in hospital, and the place of initiation was unknown for 6.7%. Benzodiazepines were prescribed more frequently to patients under 65 years than those 80 years or older (41.3% versus 22.2%, p < 0.001) whereas trazodone was more frequently prescribed to the older of these 2 age groups (52.7% versus 14.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BZD/SHDs were frequently used by hospitalized adult patients in Nova Scotia. Trazodone appears to have been substituted for benzodiazepines in the oldest age group. Pharmacists should direct their efforts toward preventing inappropriate initiation of BZD/SHDs in hospital, particularly for elderly patients.

The Effect of a Sleep Education and Hypnotics Reduction Program on Hypnotics Prescription Rate for the Hospitalized Patients with Cancer at a General Hospital

Objective

We aimed to investigate whether the sleep education and hypnotics reduction program (the i-sleep program), developed for all hospitalized patients and medical personnel, help reducing the hypnotics prescriptions rate among hospitalized cancer patients in a general hospital.

Methods

Patient data such as hypnotics prescribed at the time of admission and discharge during prior to (year of 2014) and after (year of 2015) initiation of the i-sleep program were collected and compared. Also, hypnotics prescription rate at the first day of each month of 2014 and 2015 were estimated and compared.

Results

All of 12,382 patients in 2014 and 12,313 patients in 2015 were admitted to the Department of Oncology of the hospital. In 2014, 782 (6.3%) of 12,382 inpatients were already taking hypnotics at the time of admission, and 594 (76.0%) of the 782 patients were still taking sleeping pills at the time of discharge. Following initiation of the i-sleep program (2015), 792 (6.4%) of 12,313 inpatients were already taking hypnotics at the time of admission, and 553 (69.8%) of the 792 inpatients were still taking them at the time of discharge (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–0.98). On the first day of each month of 2014, 7.3% to 12.6% (mean, 10.0%) of inpatients had prescriptions for hypnotics. Following initiation of the program, the rate of hypnotic prescription was significantly reduced (3.2–10.8%; mean, 8.0%; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Our date showed that the i-sleep program may help to reduce the hypnotic prescription rate in hospitalized cancer patients.

Reducing unnecessary sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalised older adults

Background

Benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics (BSH) have numerous adverse effects that can lead to negative outcomes, particularly in vulnerable hospitalised older adults. At our institution, over 15% of hospitalised older adults are prescribed sedative-hypnotics inappropriately. Of these prescriptions, 87% occurred at night to treat insomnia and almost 20% came from standard admission order sets.

Methods

We conducted a time-series study from January 2015 to August 2016 among medical and cardiology inpatients following the implementation in August 2015 of a sedative reduction bundle (education, removal of BSH from available admission order sets and non-pharmacological strategies to improve sleep). Preintervention period was January–July 2015 and postintervention period was August 2015–August 2016. A surgical ward served as control. Primary outcome was the proportion of BSH-naive (not on BSH prior to admission) patients 65 years or older discharged from medical and cardiology wards who were prescribed any new BSH for sleep in hospital. Data were analysed on statistical process control (SPC) p-charts with upper and lower limits set at 3δ using standard rules. Secondary measures included Patient-reported Median Sleep Quality scores and rates of fall and sedating drug prescriptions that may be used for sleep (dimenhydrinate).

Results

During the study period, there were 5805 and 1115 discharges from the intervention and control units, respectively. From the mean baseline BSH prescription rate of 15.8%, the postintervention period saw an absolute reduction of 8.0% (95% CI 5.6% to 10.3%; p<0.001). Adjusted for temporal trends, the intervention produced a 5.3% absolute reduction in the proportion of patients newly prescribed BSH (95% CI 5.6% to 10.3%; p=0.002). BSH prescription rates remained stable on the control ward. Patient-reported measure of sleep quality, falls and use of other sedating medications remained unchanged throughout the study duration.

Conclusion

A comprehensive intervention bundle was associated with a reduction in inappropriate BSH prescriptions among older inpatients.

An Implementation Guide to Promote Sleep and Reduce Sedative-Hypnotic Initiation for Noncritically Ill Inpatients

Sedative-hypnotic medications are frequently prescribed for hospitalized patients with insomnia, but they can result in preventable harm such as delirium, falls, hip fractures, and increased morbidity. Furthermore, sedative-hypnotic initiation while in the hospital carries a risk of chronic use after discharge. Disrupted sleep is a major contributor to sedative-hypnotic use among patients in the hospital and other institutional settings. Numerous multicomponent studies on improving sleep quality in these settings have been described, some demonstrating an associated reduction of sedative-hypnotic prescriptions. This selected review summarizes effective interventions aimed at promoting sleep and reducing inappropriate sedative-hypnotic initiation and proposes an implementation strategy to guide quality improvement teams.