Search

Background: Providing a timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia and delivering appropriate support following a diagnosis are essential to allow individuals and their families to plan for the future. Recent studies suggest that provision of diagnosis and post-diagnosis support is suboptimal. This study explored geriatricians' views about strategies to improve quality of care across these domains.Methods: An anonymous online survey of geriatricians and advanced trainees in one Australian state was conducted. An Expert Advisory Group of geriatricians, behavioural scientists and consumers proposed strategies to improve quality of care in relation to diagnosis and post-diagnosis support for people with dementia, which formed the survey items. Potential strategies were guided by, but not limited to, dementia and chronic care guidelines. Participants were asked the extent to which they agreed that implementing each of the proposed strategies would improve the quality of dementia care.Results: Of 59 participants (response rate 42%), all agreed that improving accessibility of geriatricians would improve the accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis. Over 90% were supportive of strategies to improve capacity of general practitioners to accurately diagnose dementia. Between 97-100% agreed that information provided following diagnosis should encompass symptom progression, treatments, psychological supports, and advance care planning. Just over two-thirds thought that life expectancy should be discussed at this time. There were high levels of support for strategies already included in existing dementia care guidelines, however geriatricians also agreed with a range of possible strategies not currently included in guidelines.Conclusions: Geriatricians perceive that timeliness and accuracy of dementia diagnosis may be improved by increasing access to geriatricians and training general practitioners in diagnosing dementia. They also believe it is appropriate to provide information at the time of diagnosis across a comprehensive range of areas, including potentially sensitive topics such as advance care planning. Future studies should explore the views of other groups of health care providers and consumers about these approaches. The strategies proposed should be considered for inclusion in future dementia care guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Being diagnosed with dementia is a confronting experience for any individual and their caregiver. However, a diagnosis provides opportunity for future preparation for management of the condition. This study investigated attitudes toward dementia and preferences for diagnosis among a sample of health service consumers in Japan.Methods: Participants were patients or accompanying support persons (n = 217) who visited the specialty outpatient clinic of four hospital departments. The survey was conducted using an iPad with answers sent automatically to a secure server. The survey included items about the participants' most feared diseases and the reasons behind those fears, estimates of dementia prevalence in Japan, and preferences regarding a diagnosis of dementia and the reasons for their preference.Results: The most feared disease was cancer (43.8 %), followed by dementia (18 %). Those selecting dementia most commonly reported practical, emotional and social impacts as the reasons why they most feared this condition. Almost all participants preferred to know the diagnosis of dementia as soon as possible for themselves, with significantly fewer preferring their spouse to know as soon as possible if they had dementia (95.9 % for self vs. 67.5 % for partner/spouse, p < 0.001). On average, participants estimated that 18.1 % of Japanese people are diagnosed with dementia by age 65, while they thought that 43.7 % of Japanese people are diagnosed with dementia by age 85.Conclusions: The findings highlight a need for community education about the significant impacts of dementia on the lives of individuals and their caregivers. People were more reluctant for their spouse to receive a diagnosis as soon as possible if they had dementia. Physicians should sensitively disclose diagnosis and ensure they involve both the patient and their relatives in discussions about diagnosis disclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To assess the scope, volume and quality of research on the acceptability, utilisation and effectiveness of telephone- and computer-delivered interventions for caregivers of people living with dementia.Methods: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched (Jan 1990 - Dec 2016). Eligible papers were classified as data-based descriptive, measurement or intervention studies. Intervention studies were first categorised according to mode of delivery (e.g. telephone, computer); then assessed against the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) methodological criteria for research design. Impact on health-related outcomes; and the acceptability, feasibility and utilisation of interventions were also assessed.Results: The number of publications increased by 13% each year (p < 0.001). Half were descriptive studies (n = 92, 50%) describing caregiver views on acceptability, access or utilization of technology. The remainder (n = 89, 48%) reported on interventions designed to improve caregiver outcomes. Only 34 met EPOC design criteria. Interventions were delivered via computer (n = 10), multiple modalities (n = 9) or telephone (n = 15). Interventions that incorporated various elements of psycho-education, peer support, skills training and health assessments led to improvements in caregiver wellbeing. While largely acceptable, utilisation of computer-based interventions was variable, with use often decreasing over time.Conclusion: Interventions delivered via telephone and computer have the potential to augment existing dementia care. High-quality trials are required to make clear recommendations about the types of interventions that are most effective. Those that provide caregivers with: access to practical strategies to manage care of the person with dementia and their own wellbeing, advice and support from peers and/or clinicians; and that target the dyad should be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As in other areas of health delivery, there is a need to ensure that end-of-life care is guided by patient centred research. A systematic review was undertaken to examine the quantity and quality of data-based research aimed at improving the (a) processes and (b) outcomes associated with delivering end-of-life care in hospital settings. Methods: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched between 1995 and 2015 for data-based papers. Eligible papers were classified as descriptive, measurement or intervention studies. Intervention studies were categorised according to whether the primary aim was to improve: (a) end of life processes (i.e. end-of-life documentation and discussions, referrals); or (b) end-of-life outcomes (i.e. perceived quality of life, health status, health care use, costs). Intervention studies were assessed against the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care methodological criteria for research design, and their effectiveness examined. Results: A total of 416 papers met eligibility criteria. The number increased by 13% each year (p < 0.001). Most studies were descriptive (n = 351, 85%), with fewer measurement (n = 17) and intervention studies (n = 48; 10%). Only 18 intervention studies (4%) met EPOC design criteria. Most reported benefits for end-of-life processes including end-of-life discussions and documentation (9/11). Impact on end-of-life outcomes was mixed, with some benefit for psychosocial distress, satisfaction and concordance in care (3/7). Conclusion: More methodologically robust studies are needed to evaluate the impact of interventions on end-of-life processes, including whether changes in processes translate to improved end-of-life outcomes. Interventions which target both the patient and substitute decision maker in an effort to achieve these changes would be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research priority setting aims to gain consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society. While general principles for setting health research priorities have been suggested, there has been no critical review of the different approaches used. This review aims to: (i) examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities; (ii) identify barriers and facilitators to priority setting processes; and (iii) determine the outcomes of priority setting processes in relation to their objectives and impact on policy and practice. Medline, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1990 to March 2012. A review of grey literature was also conducted. Priority setting exercises that aimed to develop population health and health services research priorities conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, Europe and the UK were included. Two authors extracted data from identified studies. Eleven diverse priority setting exercises across a range of health areas were identified. Strategies including calls for submission, stakeholder surveys, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, focus groups, roundtables, the Nominal Group and Delphi technique were used to generate research priorities. Nine priority setting exercises used a core steering or advisory group to oversee and supervise the priority setting process. None of the models conducted a systematic assessment of the outcomes of the priority setting processes, or assessed the impact of the generated priorities on policy or practice. A number of barriers and facilitators to undertaking research priority setting were identified. The methods used to undertake research priority setting should be selected based upon the context of the priority setting process and time and resource constraints. Ideally, priority setting should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary advisory group, involve a broad representation of stakeholders, utilise objective and clearly defined criteria for generating priorities, and be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Primary care providers are an important source of information regarding appropriate alcohol consumption. As early presentation to a provider for alcohol-related concerns is unlikely, it is important that providers are able to identify at-risk patients in order to provide appropriate advice. This study aimed to report the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of General Practitioner (GP) assessment of alcohol consumption compared to patient self-report, and explore characteristics associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Method GP practices were selected from metropolitan and regional locations in Australia. Eligible patients were adults presenting for general practice care who were able to understand English and provide informed consent. Patients completed a modified AUDIT-C by touchscreen computer as part of an omnibus health survey while waiting for their appointment. GPs completed a checklist for each patient, including whether the patient met current Australian guidelines for at-risk alcohol consumption. Patient self-report and GP assessments were compared for each patient. Results GPs completed the checklist for 1720 patients, yielding 1565 comparisons regarding alcohol consumption. The sensitivity of GPs' detection of at-risk alcohol consumption was 26.5%, with specificity of 96.1%. Higher patient education was associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Conclusions GP awareness of which patients might benefit from advice regarding at-risk alcohol consumption appears low. Given the complexities associated with establishing whether alcohol consumption is 'at-risk', computer-based approaches to routine screening of patients are worthy of exploration as a method for prompting the provision of advice in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite controversy about the benefits of routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, rates of participation continue to rise. It is important to ensure that men are fully informed about the potential risks associated with this test. Little is known about the processes of shared decision making for PSA testing in the family practice setting. This study aimed to explore men's experiences of PSA testing participation and risk disclosure for PSA testing. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of male family practice attendees aged 40 years or older, with no previous history of prostate cancer, between June 2010 and November 2011. Questions related to whether participants had undertaken PSA testing or discussed this with their doctor over the past 5 years, whether the patient or doctor had initiated the discussion, reasons for undergoing testing, and whether their doctor had discussed particular risks associated with PSA testing Results: Sixty-seven percent (215/320) of men recalled having a PSA test in the past five years. Of the respondents who reported not having a test, 14% had discussed it with their doctor. The main reasons for having a PSA test were doctor recommendation and wanting to keep up to date with health tests. Thirty-eight percent or fewer respondents reported being advised of each potential risk. Conclusions: Despite debate over the benefits of routine PSA testing, a high proportion of male family practice attendees report undertaking this test. Risks associated with testing appear to be poorly disclosed by general practitioners. These results suggest the need to improve the quality of informed consent for PSA testing in the family practice setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Admitted patients with chronic disease are at high risk of an unplanned hospital readmission, however, little research has examined unplanned readmission among Aboriginal people in Australia. This study aimed to examine whether rates of unplanned 28 day hospital readmission, or death, significantly differ between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal patients in New South Wales, Australia, over a nine-year period.Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of a sample of de-identified linked hospital administrative data was conducted. Eligible patients were: 1) aged ≥18 years old, 2) admitted to an acute facility in a NSW public hospital between 30th June 2005 and 1st July 2014, and 3) admitted with either cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes or renal disease. The primary composite outcome was unplanned readmission or death within 28 days of discharge. Generalized linear models and a test for trend were used to assess rates of unplanned readmission or death over time in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal patients with chronic disease, accounting for sociodemographic variables.Results: The final study cohort included 122,145 separations corresponding to 48,252 patients (Aboriginal = 57.2%, n = 27,601; non-Aboriginal = 42.8%, n = 20,651). 13.9% (n = 16,999) of all separations experienced an unplanned readmission or death within 28 days of discharge. Death within 28 days of discharge alone accounted for only a small number of separations (1.4%; n = 1767). Over the nine-year period, Aboriginal separations had a significantly higher relative risk of an unplanned readmission or death (Relative risk = 1.34 (1.29, 1.40); p-value < 0.0001) compared with non-Aboriginal separations once adjusted for sociodemographic, disease variables and restricted to < 75 years of age. A test for trend, including an interaction between year and Aboriginal status, showed there was no statistically significant change in proportions over the nine-year period for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal separations (p-value for trend = 0.176).Conclusion: Aboriginal people with chronic disease had a significantly higher risk of unplanned readmission or death 28 days post discharge from hospital compared with non-Aboriginal people, and there has been no significant change over the nine year period. It is critical that effective interventions to reduce unplanned readmissions for Aboriginal people are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]