Search

Abstract Objectives This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of a new, brief questionnaire, ‘Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition– Questionnaire’ (BASIC-Q) for detection of cognitive impairment, primarily developed for use in primary care. BASIC-Q has three components: Self-report, Informant report, and Orientation. Self-report and Orientation are completed by the individual and Informant report is answered by a close relative. Methods We included 275 participants ≥ 70 years, without a prior diagnosis of dementia, and with a close relative who agreed to participate as an informant. Participants were included prospectively in 14 general practices in urban and rural Denmark using a convenience sampling method. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the informant-completed Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and reported memory concern were used as a reference standard for the classification of the participants’ cognitive function. Results BASIC-Q demonstrated a fair to good diagnostic accuracy to differentiate between people with cognitive impairment and normal cognition with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.84 (95% CI 0.79–0.89) and a sensitivity and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.72–0.87) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.63–0.78). A prorated BASIC-Q score derived from BASIC-Q without Informant report had significantly lower classification accuracy than the full BASIC-Q. The test-retest reliability of BASIC-Q was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.84. Conclusion BASIC-Q is a brief, easy-to-use questionnaire for identification of cognitive impairment in older adults. It demonstrated fair to good classification accuracy in a general practice setting and can be a useful case-finding tool when suspecting dementia in primary health care.

Abstract Background The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale is the most appropriate for assessing self-reported experience in chronic care. We aimed to validate the PACIC questionnaire by (1) assess patients’ perception of the quality of care for Danish patients with type 2 diabetes, (2) identify which factors are most important to the quality of care designated by the five subscales in PACIC, and (3) the validity of the questionnaire. Methods A survey of 7,745 individuals randomly selected from the National Diabetes Registry. Descriptive statistics inter-item and item-rest correlations and factor analysis assessed the PACIC properties. Quality of care was analysed with descriptive statistics; linear and multiple regression assessed the effect of forty-nine covariates on total and subscale scores. Results In total, 2,696 individuals with type 2 diabetes completed ≥ 50 % of items. The floor effect for individual items was 8.5–74.5 %; the ceiling effect was 4.1–47.8 %. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.73–0.86 for the five subscales. The comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) were 0,87, and 0,84, respectively. Mean PACIC score was 2.44 (± 0.04). Respondents, who receive diabetes care primarily at general practice and outpatient clinics had higher scores compared to those receiving care at a private specialist. Receiving rehabilitation was followed by higher scores in all subscales. Those 70 years or older had lower mean total and subscale scores compared to younger patient groups. A higher number of diabetes visits were associated with higher total scores; a higher number of emergency department visits were associated with lower total scores. The effects of healthcare utilisation on subscale scores varied. Conclusions These results provide insight into variations in the quality of provided care and can be used for targeting initiatives towards improving diabetes care. Factors important to the quality of perceived care are having a GP or hospital outpatient clinic as the primary organization. Also having a higher number of visits to the two organizations are perceived as higher quality of care as well as participating in a rehabilitation program. Floor and ceiling effects were comparable to an evaluation of the PACIC questionnaire in a Danish population. Yet, floor effects suggest a need for further evaluation and possible improvement of the PACIC questionnaire in a Danish setting. Total PACIC scores were lower than in other healthcare systems, possible being a result of different contexts and cultures, and of a need for improving diabetes care in Denmark.

Aim: This study examined US prelicensure nursing program use of clinical judgment models and teaching strategies to promote students' clinical judgment., Background: Growing interest in teaching clinical judgment associated with upcoming changes in NCLEX-RN testing warrants exploration of how models and teaching strategies are currently used., Method: A cross-sectional survey with multiple-choice and open-ended response items was used to examine programs' use of clinical judgment educational models., Results: Of 234 participants (9 percent response rate), 27 percent reported using a model; 51 percent intended and 20 percent did not intend to start using a model. Tanner's clinical judgment model was the most used, followed by the clinical reasoning cycle. Models were used to inform design of teaching/learning strategies and facilitate clinical teaching and evaluation., Conclusion: Clinical judgment model use may increase as programs prepare for changes in NCLEX-RN. Research is needed to understand how model use contributes to measurable differences in clinical judgment skill., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 National League for Nursing.)

Competing Interests: The authors have declared no conflict of interest.