Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-vfh8q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T12:44:53.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Safer Prescribing in Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD): Reducing Anticholinergic Burden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Jessica May
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
Nurul Ain Mohd Nizam
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
Elisabeth Henrika Bonor
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
Louisa Marchant-Rutherford
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
Scott Cherry
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: NICE guidelines (NG97) emphasize the importance of assessing the anticholinergic burden of medications in older adults. Anticholinergic side effects of medications can worsen constipation, urinary retention, sedation and confusion, exacerbating cognition, falls and BPSD risks.

Medichec, a free online tool, measures medication effects on cognition and evaluates the cumulative impact. The tool provides an Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) score for each medication, ranging from 0–3. The greater the score, the greater the need to evaluate its benefits versus risks.

This project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of integrating the AEC score into multidisciplinary management of dementia inpatients.

Methods: In a 10-bed specialist dementia ward, AEC score was calculated weekly over four weeks for each patient using Medichec. This included 15 inpatients over 4 weeks. Medications contributing to AEC score were recorded and reviewed during the weekly ward multidisciplinary meetings. Individual plans were then made to reduce, hold, or stop medication where appropriate.

Results: Total AEC scores were between 1–7 for each patient, scoring primarily for psychotropic medications. The weekly percentage of patients with total AEC scores over 3 on the ward ranged between 10–37.5%. The overall trend in percentage of patients with a score over 3 showed a reduction from 37.5% at baseline to 20% at week 4.

There were 10 occasions where patients had an AEC score of 3+; on 90% of these occasions there was a documented multidisciplinary care plan and these 10 occasions represented 5 individual patients. Of these 5 patients, medications were adjusted for 2 patients, continued for 2 patients and not discussed for 1 patient.

The mean AEC score varied between 1.5–2.13; there was no reduction from baseline (1.89) to week 4 (1.9) however the average in week 4 was skewed by an outlying individual result of 7.

Conclusion: The weekly data collected in this audit supports a culture of avoiding medications with high anticholinergic burden for physical health reasons e.g. antimuscarinics for incontinence. Additionally, medications for insomnia, like 'Z-drugs', are not routinely prescribed. This helps lower the risks of side effects and aligns with NICE (NG97) guidelines for managing medications which can adversely affect cognition.

Medications with an individual anticholinergic score of 2+ or patients with a total score of 3+ on Medichec should trigger a review as this can have a clinically significant impact on individual patients.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.