Background and Objectives: Spasticity is common in long-term care facilities; however, this often-disabling condition is largely underdiagnosed in this setting and therefore left untreated. This study aimed to test the ability of a three-question flowchart used at the bedside by primary care providers in the long-term care setting to identify residents in need of referral to a specialist for spasticity consultation. Methods: All residents of a single long-term care facility were approached for participation in this cross-sectional, observational study. Spasticity diagnostic evaluations by a movement disorders specialist neurologist (reference standard) were compared with referral determinations made by two primary care providers [a primary care physician (PCP) and a nurse practitioner (NP)] using the simple flowchart. Results: The analysis included 49 residents (80% male, age 78.2±9.0 years) who were evaluated by the reference standard neurologist and at least one primary care provider. The bedside referral tool demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity when used by the PCP (92% and 78%, respectively; AUC=0.84) and NP (80% and 53%, respectively; AUC=0.67). Conclusion: This simple tool may be useful for primary care providers to identify residents to be referred to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of spasticity. These results warrant further investigation of the potential utility of this screening tool across multiple long-term care facilities and various types of care providers.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of telehealth as a screening tool for spasticity compared to direct patient assessment in the long-term care setting. Design: Cross-sectional, observational study. Setting: Two long-term care facilities: a 140-bed veterans’ home and a 44-bed state home for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Subjects: Sixty-one adult residents of two long-term care facilities (aged 70.1 ± 16.2 years) were included in this analysis. Spasticity was identified in 43% of subjects (Modified Ashworth Scale rating mode = 2). Contributing diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, birth trauma, stroke, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. Main measures: Movement disorders neurologists conducted in-person examinations to determine whether spasticity was present (reference standard) and also evaluated subjects with spasticity using the Modified Ashworth Scale. Telehealth screening examinations, facilitated by a bedside nurse, were conducted remotely by two teleneurologists using a three-question screening tool. Telehealth screening determinations of spasticity were compared to the reference standard determination to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristics. Teleneurologist agreement was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa. Results: Teleneurologist 1 had a specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 65% to identify the likely presence of spasticity ( n = 61; AUC = 0.770). Teleneurologist 2 showed 100% specificity and 82% sensitivity ( n = 16; AUC = 0.909). There was almost perfect agreement between the two examiners at 94% (kappa = 0.875, 95% CI: 0.640–1.000). Conclusion: Telehealth may provide a useful, efficient method of identifying residents of long-term care facilities that likely need referral for spasticity evaluation.

The current study evaluated the prevalence of comorbid spasticity and urinary incontinence (UI) in a long-term care facility. Medical history, presence of UI, and activities of daily living (ADL) dependency were obtained from medical records and Minimum Data Set 3.0. Quality of life was assessed with the EuroQoL-5D-5L (EQ-5D). Comorbid spasticity and UI presented in 29% of participants (14 of 49). Participants with spasticity and UI had higher ADL dependency and lower EQ-5D than participants without both conditions (4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.6, 80.], p = 0.003; −0.17, 95% CI [−0.33, 0.00], p = 0.044; respectively). More than one half of participants with lower limb spasticity had severe UI, compared to only 10% without lower limb spasticity (relative risk = 5.5; 95% CI [1.9, 15.9]; p = 0.006). Comorbid spasticity and UI may be common in the long-term care setting and negatively associated with ADL and quality of life. Further investigation is needed to confirm these findings. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46 (10), 35–42.]

The recreational and medicinal uses of cannabis are increasing worldwide. Given the recent legalization of marijuana in some regions of the United States, the use of edible formulations has become increasingly popular, especially among the elderly. These new formulations can be up to 10 times more potent than previously available preparations and have been associated with a variety of cardiovascular adverse effects.Here, we present a case of an elderly male who presented with dizziness and altered mental status. He was found to be severely bradycardic and emergently required atropine. Further investigation revealed that he accidentally ingested large amounts of oral cannabis. An extensive cardiac workup revealed no other etiology for his arrhythmia. Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are the most commonly studied cannabis compounds. With the increased access to and popularity of edible cannabis formulations, this case demonstrates the need for further research regarding the safety of oral cannabis.