Search

Objectives: Cognitive impairment, pain and depressive symptoms are common and interrelated factors in older adults. However, the directionality and specificity of their association remains unclarified. This study explored whether these factors prospectively increase reciprocal risk and examined the longitudinal association between these factors and quality of life (QoL). Methods: This study used longitudinal data from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimal Data Set (TOPICS‐MDS; the Netherlands). Older adults self‐reported cognitive impairment, pain, depressive symptoms and QoL at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of follow‐up. The Random Intercept Cross‐Lagged Panel Model was used to assess the prospective association between the three factors, while a multilevel linear regression analysis in a two‐level random intercept model was used to examine the longitudinal associations between the three factors and QoL at the within‐person level. Results: The data of 11,582 home‐dwelling older adults with or without subjective cognitive impairment were analysed. At the within‐person level, pain at 6 months was associated with subsequent depressive symptoms (β = 0.04, p = 0.024). The reverse association from depression to pain, and longitudinal associations between pain and subjective cognitive impairment and between depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive impairment were non‐significant. Pain, depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive impairment showed a significant association with poor QoL 6 months later. Conclusions: A directional relationship was observed from pain to depressive symptoms. Pain reduction holds a potential benefit in the prevention of depressive symptoms, ultimately optimising the QoL of older adults. Key points: Older adults have multiple chronic conditions, and subjective cognitive impairment, pain and depressive symptoms are common and interrelated factors which affect the quality of life.Home‐dwelling older adults experiencing pain were more likely to report later depressive symptoms.Pain, depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive impairment were associated with subsequent poor quality of life.Pain reduction may help prevent depressive symptoms and poor quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: For older people who worry about their memory, their general practitioner (GP) is often the first healthcare professional they turn to. This study aims to increase knowledge of GPs' daily practice on diagnostic strategies for patients who present themselves with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia for the first time in general practice and to explore associations of patients' characteristics with these strategies. Method: Retrospective observational study using electronic patient records from patients presenting with memory complaints between 2012 and 2019. The patient records are derived from a Dutch primary care registration network. The decision on diagnostic strategy was extracted and categorized as (1) wait and see, (2) diagnostic testing in primary care, or (3) referral. Patient characteristics (gender, age, general practice, level of comorbidities, chronic polypharmacy, and the number of consultations on memory complaints), fear of developing dementia, and information on why the first consultation on memory complaints was scheduled were extracted. Results: A total of 228 patients were included. Most patients were cared for within primary care, either for further primary care diagnostics (56.1%) or because a wait‐and‐see strategy was pursued (14.9%). One‐third (28.9%) of patients were referred. Differences between diagnostic strategies in patient characteristics, fear of developing dementia, or reason for first consultation between these diagnostic strategies were not found, nor were these variables predictive of referral. Conclusion: Most Dutch patients with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia who seek help from their GP for the first time are cared for in the primary care setting for the following 6 months. The lack of association between included patient characteristics and diagnostic strategies highlights the complexity of the decision‐making process on diagnostic testing for dementia in general practice. Key points: Most Dutch patients who seek help for memory complaints from their general practitioner (GP) for the first time are not referred for specialized diagnostic testing, which underlines the crucial and gatekeeper role GPs play in the management and care for this patient group.Previous qualitative research indicates that GPs consider patient characteristics important in decisions on diagnostic trajectories for memory complaints. Retrospective data from the studied electronic patient records, however, indicates that patient characteristics such as age and comorbidity do not differ between diagnostic strategies nor are they predictive for referrals.Further unraveling of the complex decision‐making process for diagnostic testing for dementia is needed to facilitate timely dementia diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care for the frail elderly is often provided by several professionals. Collaboration between them is essential, but remains difficult to achieve. Interprofessional education (IPE) can improve this collaboration. We developed a 9-hour IPE program for primary care professionals from 7 disciplines caring for the frail elderly, and aimed to establish whether the program improved professionals' interprofessional attitudes and attitudes toward collaboration, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. We also evaluated learners' reactions to the program. Methods: Before-after study, using the Interprofessional Attitudes Questionnaire (IAQ, score:1 to 7); Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS, score: 0 to 105); and Team Skills Scale (TSS, score:17 to 85). Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 selected participants. Results: Participants' ( N = 80) overall interprofessional attitudes improved (IAQ baseline: 5.49; follow-up: 5.67, p = 0.001); attitudes toward geriatric teams did not change (ATHCTS baseline: 69.9; follow-up: 69.1, p = 0.32). Participants' self-reported team skills improved (TSS baseline: 45.7; follow-up: 48.1, p = 0.001). In the interviews, many interviewees reported increased collaboration with professionals of other disciplines due to the program. Interviewees considered the program's interprofessional nature and attending the program with local professionals important contributing factors to the experienced improvements in collaboration. However, they also noted that not all parts of the program had met the needs of all participating disciplines, due to differences in professional background and knowledge. Discussion: A brief IPE program can improve interprofessional attitudes, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. That such a program allows professionals to get acquainted with each other and each other's viewpoints appears to be as important as the educational content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the preferences of people with memory complaints (PwMC) and their significant others regarding starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. Selection of abstracts and papers was performed independently by two researchers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Result sections of the selected papers were thematically synthesized. From 2497 citations, seven qualitative studies and two mixed methods studies published between 2010 and 2020 were included. Overall quality of the studies was high to moderate. A thematic synthesis showed that preferences for starting a diagnostic trajectory arose from the feeling of needing to do something about the symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of starting a diagnostic trajectory. These views were influenced by normalization or validation of symptoms, the support or wishes of the social network, interactions with health care professionals, the health status of the PwMC, and societal factors such as stigma and socioeconomic status. A variety of considerations with regard to decision-making on starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia were identified. This emphasizes the need to explore individual preferences to facilitate a timely dementia diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care integration in primary elderly care is suboptimal. Validated instruments are needed to enable the implementation of integrated primary care. We aimed to assess construct validity of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool (RMIC-MT) for healthcare professionals working in an integrated primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the RMIC-MT, a 36-item questionnaire covering all domains of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), was sent out to local networks of primary elderly care professionals. Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was used for the validation of the factor structure the RMIC-MT. Model fit was assessed by the chi-square test and fit indices. Results: The RMIC-MT was completed by 323 professionals, primarily general practitioners, community nurses, practice nurses, and case managers. Confirmatory factor analysis and corresponding fit indices showed moderate to good fit, thereby confirming a nine factor model with a total of 36 items. Conclusions: The RMIC-MT is promising for the primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. It can be used for evaluating integrated care initiatives in a primary care setting, thereby contributing to implementation of integrated primary elderly care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. Objective: To describe the development of a two‐step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. Methods: The method consisted of (i) an open‐ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. Results: One hundred and thirty‐seven community‐dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well‐being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. Conclusions: This two‐step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. It is uncertain whether ancillary testing is beneficial for patients. This study investigates the association between use of diagnostic tests and time to poor outcome and health care costs. Nationwide register-based cohort study using health care reimbursement data in the Netherlands. All Dutch hospitals, including 13,312 patients diagnosed with dementia in 2018. Diagnostic testing included computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI), neuropsychological examination (NPE), nuclear imaging (PET/SPECT), electroencephalography (EEG), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. We compared time to poor outcome (institutionalization or death) and costs per month from 2018 to 2021 between those who underwent a specific diagnostic test in previous years to controls, propensity score matched for age, sex, type of hospital, and comorbidity. Time to poor outcome in those who underwent CT/MRI, EEG, or CSF testing was similar to those who did not, but was longer for those who underwent NPE. Time to poor outcome was shorter in patients who underwent PET/SPECT. Patients who underwent CSF testing or PET/SPECT had higher mean total health care costs as compared to controls (CSF €248, 95% CI 64-433; PET/SPECT: €315, 95% CI 179-451). NPE during the diagnostic trajectory was associated with lower total health care cost (–€127, 95% CI –62, –193). NPE was associated with longer time to poor outcome and lower health care costs, potentially due to confounding by indication. Patients who underwent neuroimaging (CT, MRI, SPECT/PET), CSF testing, or EEG for dementia diagnostics did not experience a longer time to poor outcome or lower health care costs. This emphasizes the importance of clinical examination as anchor for the diagnosis of dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. Aim: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. Design: A prospective study. Participants: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. Results: In group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. Conclusions: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]