Most elderly in nursing homes on wrong drugs

whiteonion

Roughly 70% of all the elderly people in nursing homes get drugs they should not be taking. This has to be addressed immediately. First of all it's not healthy to be on prescription drugs you shouldn't be on in the first place, second it's a terrible waste of money.
http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/most-elderly-in-nursing-homes-on-wrong-drugs-2612607.html

The article states the following.
"Pharmacists believed the drugs were prescribed for the convenience of nursing home staff."

I would never put my parents in a nursing home and let them be drugged by overpaid staff who put them on sedatives so that they can keep them quiet. This is how things work in the real world, elderly people get put on strong drugs to keep them quiet so that the staff don't have to do any actual work.

El Weirdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxc-CidJiw

Look like the right drugs to me.

smk89

OP how do you propose we fix it?

Stop just making statements and ask a question

whiteonion

smk89 wrote: »

OP how do you propose we fix it?

Stop just making statements and ask a question

First we should ban the use of psychiatric drugs. Second we should ban the use of statins. This will reduce the intake of drugs that the elderly get in nursing homes.

Second I would stop subsidising prescription drugs, the more you subsidise something the more of it you'll get. If we stop subsidising prescription drugs they will be used less.

mardybumbum

whiteonion wrote: »

First we should ban the use of psychiatric drugs. Second we should ban the use of statins. This will reduce the intake of drugs that the elderly get in nursing homes.

Second I would stop subsidising prescription drugs, the more you subsidise something the more of it you'll get. If we stop subsidising prescription drugs they will be used less.

Statins?

whiteonion

mardybumbum wrote: »

Statins?

Statin is a type of drug which is used to lower cholesterol levels. A totally useless drug because it has been proven that cholesterol is not dangerous.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Drugs = bad. Mmmk?

smk89

mardybumbum wrote: »

Statins?

Statins are a cholesterol lowering agent. They are highly effective, with few if no side effects and their stoke lowering properties vastly outweigh their downsides.

The problem isn't with over-prescription its that elderly populations are given drugs from different specialists. No mental health centers are attached to acute hospitals meaning when elderly present to hospital they are given extra drugs to solve problems they have, but aren't taken off drugs for problems that have been resolved.

p.s. psychiatric drugs are totally needed. You would appreciate that if you saw people without them

flutered

it is mostly valium and sleeping tabs that are over suscribed, so as the staff can have an easier time, as you realise when people are drugger they are quite do not cause trouble, do not want to leave for home, do not ask for attention or anything else, so they have an easy shift no grief, leave and go to work.

whiteonion

smk89 wrote: »

Statins are a cholesterol lowering agent. They are highly effective, with few if no side effects and their stoke lowering properties vastly outweigh their downsides.

The problem isn't with over-prescription its that elderly populations are given drugs from different specialists. No mental health centers are attached to acute hospitals meaning when elderly present to hospital they are given extra drugs to solve problems they have, but aren't taken off drugs for problems that have been resolved.

p.s. psychiatric drugs are totally needed. You would appreciate that if you saw people without them

Cholestorol does not cause heart disease, it's a myth.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol

El Weirdo

smk89 wrote: »

p.s. psychiatric drugs are totally needed. You would appreciate that if you saw people without them

Quite.

mardybumbum

I was always taught that cholesterol whether it be endogenous in nature or in the diet was a major risk factor for vascular disease.
If you could point me in the direction of the evidence that proves otherwise I would be much obliged.

mardybumbum

whiteonion wrote: »

Cholestorol does not cause heart disease, it's a myth.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol

Whether dietary cholesterol is a risk factor for atherosclerosis or not is questionable. There are certainly two schools of thought on it.
Regardless, statins dont lower dietary cholestrol, they only lower the levels produced by your own body, which most certainly is a risk factor for vascular disease.

If your recommendation of banning statins were put in place I reckon we would see a wave of heart attacks across the nation very soon after.

smk89

whiteonion wrote: »

Cholestorol does not cause heart disease, it's a myth.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol

I hate to be a dick here but if cholesterol doesn't cause HD then thats all my biochem out the window.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Quite.

Its an exorcist you need for those 2, espically what they did on Vincent Browns.

mardybumbum wrote: »

I was always taught that cholesterol whether it endogenous in nature or in the diet was a major risk factor for vascular disease.
If you could point me in the direction of the evidence that proves otherwise I would be much obliged.

Don't believe everything you hear. Cholesterol levels >5 for 10-30 years greatly increases your risk of HD

Daegerty

Most elderly in nursing homes on wrong drugs

You mean, most of them are not smoking weed?

whiteonion

mardybumbum wrote: »

I was always taught that cholesterol whether it endogenous in nature or in the diet was a major risk factor for vascular disease.
If you could point me in the direction of the evidence that proves otherwise I would be much obliged.

If you honestly believe that foods rich in cholesterol is bad maybe we should ban breastfeeding of infants?

"Human breast milk also contains significant quantities of cholesterol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

purity

As a nursing staff myself I can assure you when a sedative is being given on PRN it's very needed for the patients safety rather than to keep them quite. Anti-depressants is another drug which has been ill prescribed but when an immobile patient cannot mobilise or communicate well there will be depression and it's for their best health that a hormone of seratonin which is found in most anti depressants is given.
I agree the hse is spending loads on prescriptions and most are general waste but there is always going to be an argument over whether or not a patient would need them in the first place. All patients are assessed thoroughly by a gp before any prescription is made

Kinetic^

I'd say they trade them to each other. Swapsies!

bleg

After hours health issue ignorance thread. Once a week.

smk89

whiteonion wrote: »

If you honestly believe that foods rich in cholesterol is bad maybe we should ban breastfeeding of infants?

"Human breast milk also contains significant quantities of cholesterol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

Babies need high levels of cholesterol for neurological growth.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

whiteonion wrote: »

Statin is a type of drug which is used to lower cholesterol levels. A totally useless drug because it has been proven that cholesterol is not dangerous.

Why do you still exist???

Seriously... where do you get this crap from???

mardybumbum

whiteonion wrote: »

If you honestly believe that foods rich in cholesterol is bad maybe we should ban breastfeeding of infants?

"Human breast milk also contains significant quantities of cholesterol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

I never said that foods high in cholesterol are bad.
But as I already mentioned, statins have no effect on dietary cholesterol so why get rid of them?

And Im not sure if the cholesterol an infant is exposed to during a few months of breastfeeding is comparable to years of burgers and chips, but the point is null anyway with regards to statins.

hondasam

whiteonion wrote: »

Statin is a type of drug which is used to lower cholesterol levels. A totally useless drug because it has been proven that cholesterol is not dangerous.

Are you a Doctor ?

tightropetom

whiteonion wrote: »

Cholestorol does not cause heart disease, it's a myth.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol

Are you from a medical background yourself, whiteonion? :eek:

http://www.nice.org.uk/TA094 Current N.I.C.E. guidelines
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4510 American Heart Association

smk89

mardybumbum wrote: »

I never said that foods high in cholesterol are bad.
But as I already mentioned, statins have no effect on dietary cholesterol so why get rid of them?

And Im not sure if the cholesterol an infant is exposed to during a few months of breastfeeding is comparable to years of burgers and chips, but the point is null anyway with regards to statins.

Statins decrease cholesterol production in the liver (25% produced there) and also act on damage to the vessel walls.

To show how common statins are Dara O'Brien is on one. He said in one of his gigs, their very common drugs and although hes a bit... large hes only 39!

Captain Darling

They need to be banging seven gram rocks. Its a winning formula.

mardybumbum

smk89 wrote: »

Statins decrease cholesterol production in the liver (25% produced there) and also act on damage to the vessel walls.

To show how common statins are Dara O'Brien is on one. He said in one of his gigs, their very common drugs and although hes a bit... large hes only 39!

With the risk of turning this thread into a chapter of Rang and Dale.....

I'm aware of the effects statins have on de novo synthesis but how do they "act on damage to the vessel walls"?
Atherosclerosis is irreversible, no?

whiteonion

"For every 100 people in the trial that lasted 3 l/2 years, 3 people on the placebo and 2 people on Lipitor had heart attacks. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people.


In other words, 100 people had to take Lipitor for 3 l/2 years to prevent one heart attack. What this really means is, 99 out of 100 people taking Lipitor received no benefit."
http://thecholesterolliereview.com/dr-dwight-lundell-great-statin-scam/


Statins should not be given to elderly patients in nursing homes. If we stop subsidising statins it would be great.

mardybumbum

whiteonion wrote: »

"For every 100 people in the trial that lasted 3 l/2 years, 3 people on the placebo and 2 people on Lipitor had heart attacks. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people.


In other words, 100 people had to take Lipitor for 3 l/2 years to prevent one heart attack. What this really means is, 99 out of 100 people taking Lipitor received no benefit."
http://thecholesterolliereview.com/dr-dwight-lundell-great-statin-scam/


Statins should not be given to elderly patients in nursing homes. If we stop subsidising statins it would be great.

Where is the trial?
All you have done is post a link to a website with a very biased sounding URL.

smk89

mardybumbum wrote: »

With the risk of turning this thread into a chapter of Rang and Dale.....

I'm aware of the effects statins have on de novo synthesis but how do they "act on damage to the vessel walls"?
Atherosclerosis is irreversible, no?

It was thought it wasn't but statins actually can reverse it, partially. Still a healthy diet and regular exercise is far more effective. The Health Education forum is your spot for info like that.

whiteonion wrote: »

"For every 100 people in the trial that lasted 3 l/2 years, 3 people on the placebo and 2 people on Lipitor had heart attacks. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people.


In other words, 100 people had to take Lipitor for 3 l/2 years to prevent one heart attack. What this really means is, 99 out of 100 people taking Lipitor received no benefit."
http://thecholesterolliereview.com/dr-dwight-lundell-great-statin-scam/

A) Those people are only monitored for 3 years, the next day if they have a MI it doesn't count. Also cholesterol damage is slow and maybe they will have one in 10/20 years without the drug. A cohort study is needed.

That is the most heartless thing I've heard today. 1 person in every 100 people in Ireland is 40k people every 3 years you are condemning to death. In the US 1 month supply of statins cost $11. If the medical card was means tested that would be paid by the individual.