Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- - (5) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- Frontiers Media S.A. (2)
- MDPI (2)
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic and the imposed lockdowns severely affected routine care in general and specialized physician practices.
Objective
To describe the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physician services provision and disease recognition in German physician practices and perceived causes for the observed changes.
Design
Observational study based on medical record data and survey data of general practitioners and specialists' practices.
Participants
996 general practitioners (GPs) and 798 specialist practices, who documented 6.1 million treatment cases for medical record data analyses and 645 physicians for survey data analyses.
Main measures
Within the medical record data, consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions, and documented diagnoses were extracted for the pandemic (March 2020–September 2021) and compared to corresponding pre-pandemic months in 2019. The additional online survey was used to assess changes in practice management during the COVID-19 pandemic and physicians' perceived main causes of affected primary and specialized care provision.
Main results
Hospital admissions (GPs: −22% vs. specialists: −16%), specialist referrals (−6 vs. −3%) and recognized diseases (−9 vs. −8%) significantly decreased over the pandemic. GPs consultations initially decreased (2020: −7%) but compensated at the end of 2021 (+3%), while specialists' consultation did not (−2%). Physicians saw changes in patient behavior, like appointment cancellation, as the main cause of the decrease. Contrary to this, they also mentioned substantial modifications of practice management, like reduced (nursing) home visits (41%) and opening hours (40%), suspended checkups (43%), and delayed consultations for high-risk patients (71%).
Conclusion
The pandemic left its mark on primary and specialized healthcare provision and its utilization. Both patient behavior and organizational changes in practice management may have caused decreased and non-compensation of services. Evaluating the long-term effect on patient outcomes and identifying potential improvements are vital to better prepare for future pandemic waves.
Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and “thinking-aloud” interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.
Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD’s conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.
Abstract
Aims
To demonstrate the attitudes of general practitioners (GPs), nurses, persons with dementia, and caregiver towards suitable tasks and qualification needs for and the acceptance and impact of advanced nursing roles in German dementia primary care.
Design
Observational study using a questionnaire survey with 225 GPs, 232 nurses, 211 persons with dementia, and 197 caregivers, conducted between December 2017–August 2018.
Methods
A questionnaire was generated that includes specific assessment, prescription, and monitoring tasks of advanced nursing roles in dementia primary care as well as qualification requirements for and the acceptance and the impact of advanced nursing roles. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Group differences were assessed using the Fisher's exact test.
Results
Advanced nursing roles were highly appreciated across all groups. Assessment and monitoring tasks were rated as highly suitable, and prescription authorities as moderately suitable. Nurses felt less confident in assessment and monitoring, but more confident in prescribing as practitioners expected. Patients and caregivers would appreciate a takeover of tasks by nurses; nurses and practitioners preferred a delegation. A dementia‐specific qualification was rated as best suitable for advanced nursing roles, followed by ‘no specific qualification’ if medical tasks that only can be carried out by practitioners were delegated and an academic degree if tasks were substituted. Advanced nursing roles were rated as beneficial, strengthening the confidence in nursing care and improving the cooperation between professionals and the treatment. Practitioners assumed that advanced nursing roles would improve job satisfaction of nurses, which was not confirmed by nurses.
Conclusion
There is an extended consensus towards the enlargement of advanced nursing roles, represented by high endorsement, acceptance, and willingness to reorganize tasks.
Impact
Results debunk the common notion that German practitioners would be reluctant towards advanced nursing roles and a takeover of current practitioner tasks, supporting the implementation of advanced nursing roles in Germany.
Introduction: Hearing and vision loss are highly prevalent in elderly adults, and thus frequently occur in conjunction with cognitive impairments. Studies have shown that hearing impairment is associated with a higher risk of dementia. However, evidence concerning the association between vision loss and dementia, as well as the co-occurrence of vision and hearing loss and dementia, has been inconclusive.
Objectives: To assess the association between: (i) either hearing or vision loss and the risk of dementia, as well as between; and (ii) the combination of both sensory impairments and the risk of dementia.
Methods: This case-control study was based on a 5-year data set that included patients aged 65 years and older who had initially been diagnosed with dementia diseases by one of 1,203 general practitioners in Germany between January 2013 and December 2017. In total, 61,354 identified dementia cases were matched to non-dementia controls, resulting in a sample size of 122,708 individuals. Hearing loss and vision loss were identified using the ICD-10 diagnoses documented in the general practitioners’ files prior to the initial dementia diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the associations between visual and/or hearing impairment and the risk of dementia and controlled for sociodemographic and clinical variables.
Results: Hearing impairment was documented in 11.2% of patients with a dementia diagnosis and 9.5% of patients without such a diagnosis. Some form of vision impairment was documented in 28.4% of patients diagnosed with dementia and 28.8% of controls. Visual impairment was not significantly associated with dementia (OR = 0.97, CI = 95% 0.97–1.02, p = 0.219). However, patients with hearing impairment were at a significantly higher risk of developing dementia (OR = 1.26, CI = 95% 1.15–1.38, p < 0.001), a finding that very likely led to the observed significant association of the combination of both visual and hearing impairments and the risk of dementia (OR = 1.14, CI = 95% 1.04–1.24, p = 0.005).
Discussion: This analysis adds important evidence that contributes to the limited body of knowledge about the association between hearing and/or vision loss and dementia. It further demonstrates that, of the two, only hearing impairment affects patients’ cognition and thus contributes to dementia risk.