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]

OBJECTIVES: To construct a set of quality indicators (QIs) for dementia diagnosis and management in a primary care setting. DESIGN: RAND modified Delphi method, including a postal survey, a stakeholders consensus meeting, a scientific expert consensus meeting, and a demonstration project. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (GPs), primary care nurses (PCNs), and informal caregivers (ICs) in postal survey and stakeholders consensus meeting. Eight national dementia experts in scientific consensus meeting. Thirteen GPs in the demonstration project. MEASUREMENTS: Mean face validity and feasibility scores. Compliance rates using GPs' electronic medical record data. RESULTS: The initial set consisted of 31 QIs. Most indicators showed moderate or good face validity and feasibility scores. Consensus panels reduced the preliminary set used in the demonstration project to 24 QIs. The overall compliance to the QIs was 45.3%. Discriminative validity of the set was good; significant differences in adherence were found between GPs with high and low levels of patients aged 65 and older in their practice, with and without PCNs, and with positive and negative attitudes toward dementia (all P<.05). Based on the demonstration project, one QI was excluded. The final set consisted of 23 QIs; 15 QIs contained innovative quality criteria on collaboration between GPs and PCNs, referral criteria, and assessment of caregivers' needs. CONCLUSION: This new set of dementia QIs is feasible, reliable, and valid and can be used to improve primary dementia care. Because of the innovative quality criteria, the set is complementary to the existing dementia QIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented which is concerned with the care related goals of community dwelling frail older adults.

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]