Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (8) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- - (5)
- dementia (4)
- Dementia (2)
- patient preferences (2)
- Advanced nursing practice (1)
- Advanced nursing roles (1)
- Alzheimer's (1)
- Alzheimer’s disease (1)
- Analytic hierarchy process (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
Institute
Publisher
- BioMed Central (BMC) (2)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (2)
- MDPI (2)
Background
A redistribution of tasks between specialized nurses and primary care physicians, i.e., models of advanced nursing practice, has the potential to improve the treatment and care of the growing number of people with dementia (PwD). Especially in rural areas with limited access to primary care physicians and specialists, these models might improve PwD’s quality of life and well-being. However, such care models are not available in Germany in regular healthcare. This study examines the acceptance, safety, efficacy, and health economic efficiency of an advanced nursing practice model for PwD in the primary care setting in Germany.
Methods
InDePendent is a two-arm, multi-center, cluster-randomized controlled intervention study. Inclusion criteria are age ≥70 years, cognitively impaired (DemTect ≤8) or formally diagnosed with dementia, and living in the own home. Patients will be recruited by general practitioners or specialists. Randomization is carried out at the physicians’ level in a ratio of 1:2 (intervention vs. waiting-control group). After study inclusion, all participants will receive a baseline assessment and a follow-up assessment after 6 months. Patients of the intervention group will receive advanced dementia care management for 6 months, carried out by specialized nurses, who will conduct certain tasks, usually carried out by primary care physicians. This includes a standardized assessment of the patients’ unmet needs, the generation and implementation of an individualized care plan to address the patients’ needs in close coordination with the GP. PwD in the waiting-control group will receive routine care for 6 months and subsequently become part of the intervention group. The primary outcome is the number of unmet needs after 6 months measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). The primary analysis after 6 months is carried out using multilevel models and will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, caregiver burden, acceptance, and cost-effectiveness. In total, n=465 participants are needed to assess significant differences in the number of unmet needs between the intervention and control groups.
Discussion
The study will provide evidence about the acceptance, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of an innovative interprofessional concept based on advanced nursing care. Results will contribute to the implementation of such models in the German healthcare system. The goal is to improve the current treatment and care situation for PwD and their caregivers and to expand nursing roles.
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.
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.
Background: Demographic changes are leading to a rapid increase in the number and proportion of the elderly. This goes along with an increase of prevalence of age-associated illnesses, such as dementia. The prevalence of dementia is estimated to amount to 1.5 million in Germany. Up to three-quarter of the persons with dementia (PWD) were living in their own homes. In European countries, dementia is associated with substantial and increasing healthcare costs, which makes dementia one of the most expensive diseases in old age and a serious health care priority. Whereas analyses of total healthcare costs in dementia have been the focus of various cost-of-illness (COI) studies, so far little is known about several cost categories in detail. Firstly, detailed economic analyses of medication cost are currently still missing. Secondly, it is well known that dementia is under-diagnosed, but there is a lack of knowledge about the differences in resource utilization and its costs between dementia patients with and those without a formal dementia diagnosis. Finally, analyses that take the utilization and costs of professional formal and unpaid informal care as well as caregiver’s productivity losses into a consideration are currently missing. Objectives: (1) To determine medication cost, cost per drug and number of drugs taken and analyze their associated factors; to estimate the current price reduction of anti-dementia drugs due to implementation of low-priced generics. (2) To determine health care resource utilisation and costs of patients with a formal diagnosis and those without a formal diagnosis of dementia, and to analyse the association between having received a formal dementia diagnosis and health care costs (3) To determine the utilization and costs of formal and informal care for PwD, indirect costs because of productivity losses of caregivers and the associations between cost, socio-demographic and clinical variables. Methods: The present study is a cross-sectional analysis of health care resource utilization and health care cost of community-dwelling PWD in primary care. Analyses are based on primary data from the ongoing DelpHi-MV trial (Dementia: Life- and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany), a population-based, cluster-randomized, controlled intervention trial in the primary care setting (Clinical Trials gov. Identifier: NCT01401582). Eligible patients (older than 70 years, living at home) were screened in participating general practitioner practices for dementia using the DemTect. The utilization of healthcare resources was assessed within the baseline assessment at practitioner’s homes. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the statutory health insurance or the social perspective. Factors associated with healthcare cost were evaluated using multiple regression models. Results: (1) Medication cost and cost per drug were higher and the number of taken drugs lower in advanced stages of cognitive impairment. Prescription of anti-dementia generics could decrease overall medication cost by 28%. Medication cost was associated with number of diagnoses, deficits in activities of daily living and age. Dementia severity was related to cost per drug and number of drugs taken. (2) Patients formally diagnosed with dementia were treated significantly more often by a neurologist, but less often by all other outpatient specialists, and received anti-dementia drugs and day care more often. Diagnosed patients underwent shorter and less frequent planned in-hospital treatments. Dementia diagnosis was significantly associated with higher costs of anti-dementia drug treatment, but significantly associated with less total medical care costs, which valuated to be € 5,123 compared, to € 5,565 for undiagnosed patients. (3) Formal care were utilized less (26.3%) than informal care (85.1%), resulting in a cost ratio of one to ten (1,646 €; 16,473 €, respectively). In total, 29% of caregivers were employed, and every seventh (14.3%) experienced productivity losses, which corresponded to 1,258 € annually. Whereas increasing deficits in daily living activities were associated with higher formal and higher informal costs, living alone was significantly associated with higher formal care costs and the employment of a caregiver was associated with lower informal care costs. Conclusion: (1) Medication cost increases with the number of diagnoses and growing deficits in activities of daily living and decreases with age. Severely cognitively impaired persons are treated with a small number of high-priced drugs, which could suggest inadequate medication of multimorbid persons. (2) There are no significant differences in total health care cost between diagnosed and undiagnosed patients. Dementia diagnosis is beneficial for receiving cost-intensive anti-dementia drug treatments, but is currently insufficient to ensure adequate non-medication treatment for community-dwelling patients. (3) Informal care contributes the most to total care costs. Living alone is a major cost driver for formal costs because of the lower availability of potential informal care. The availability of informal care is limited and productivity losses are increased when a caregiver is employed.
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.
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. Among People-living-with-Dementia (PlwD) data on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which would allow to quantify, weigh and rank patient-relevant elements of dementia-care, and identify most/least preferred choices, are limited. The Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP) may be one approach to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences with PlwD, due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision-problem, e.g. health care decisions. Furthermore, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians’ judgements for PCC are missing. If patient preferences and physicians’ judgements differ, provision of PCC becomes unlikely. An understanding of patient preferences compared to physician’s judgements will support the implementation of truly PCC, i.e. state of the art dementia-care aligned with patient preferences.
Methods
This mixed-methods-study will be based on the results from a previous systematic review and conducted in three phases: (I) literature-based key intervention-categories of PCC will be investigated during qualitative interviews with Dementia-Care-Managers (DCMs) and PlwD to identify actually patient-relevant (sub) criteria of PCC; (II) based on findings from phase I, an AHP-survey will be designed and pre-tested for face- and content-validity, and consistency during face-to-face “thinking-aloud”-interviews with PlwD and two expert panels (DCMs and physicians); (III) the developed survey will elicit patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. To assess individual importance weights for (sub) criteria in both groups, the Principal-Eigenvector-Method will be applied. Weights will be aggregated per group by Aggregation-of-Individual-Priorities-mode. Descriptive and interferential statistical analyses will be conducted to assess congruence of importance-weights between groups. Subgroup-analyses shall investigate participant-heterogeneities, sensitivity of AHP-results shall be tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents.
Discussion
Little research is published on quantitative, choice-based preferences in dementia care. We expect that (1) PlwD have preferences and can express these, (2) that the AHP is a suitable technique to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences among PlwD, and (3) to identify a divergence between patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. With the help of the AHP-technique, which supports systematic decision-making including multiple criteria, it may be possible to involve PlwD in future care decisions (patient participation) and ensure implementation of truly Person-Centered-Dementia-Care.
Trial registration
Approval of the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald the 09Apr2021 (Reg.-Nr.: BB 018–21, BB 018-21a, BB 018-21b).
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.