Search

BackgroundMild cognitive impairment is common in Parkinson disease (PD-MCI). However, instability in this clinical diagnosis and variability in rates of progression to dementia raises questions regarding its utility for longitudinal tracking and prediction of cognitive change in PD. We examined baseline neuropsychological test and cognitive diagnosis predictors of cognitive change in PD.MethodsPersons with PD, without dementia PD (N=138) underwent comprehensive neuropsychological assessment at baseline and were followed up to 2 years. Level II Movement Disorder Society criteria for PD-MCI and PD dementia (PDD) were applied annually. Composite global and domain cognitive z -scores were calculated based on a 10-test neuropsychological battery.ResultsBaseline diagnosis of PD-MCI was not associated with a change in global cognitive z -scores. Lower baseline attention and higher executive domain z -scores were associated with greater global cognitive z -score worsening regardless of cognitive diagnosis. Worse baseline domain z -scores in the attention and language domains were associated with progression to MCI or PDD, whereas higher baseline scores in all cognitive domains except executive function were associated with clinical and psychometric reversion to "normal" cognition.ConclusionsLower scores on cognitive tests of attention were predictive of worse global cognition over 2 years of follow-up in PD, and lower baseline attention and language scores were associated with progression to MCI or PDD. However, PD-MCI diagnosis per se was not predictive of cognitive decline over 2 years. The association between higher executive domain z -scores and greater global cognitive worsening is probably a spurious result.

BackgroundClinical monitoring of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) for cognitive decline is an important element of care. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been proposed to be a sensitive tool for assessing cognitive impairment in PD. The aim of our study was to compare the responsiveness of the MoCA to decline in cognition to the responsiveness of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's disease-cognition (SCOPA-Cog).MethodsPD patients without dementia were enrolled at 6 North American movement disorders centers between 2008 and 2011. Participants received annual evaluations including the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog followed by formal neuropsychological testing. The gold standard for change in cognition was defined as the change on the neuropsychological test scores over the annual assessments. The Reliable Change Method was used to provide an estimate of the probability that a given difference score would be obtained by chance. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change was quantified using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.ResultsOne hundred seventeen patients were included in the analysis. Participants were followed at mean intervals of 11 ± 2 months for a median of 2 (maximum 5) visits. According to the reliable change index, 56 intervals of cognitive testing showed a decline in global cognition. ROC analysis of change in MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog global scores compared to gold standard testing found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.55 (95% CI 0.48-0.62), 0.56 (0.48-0.63), and 0.63 (0.55-0.70) respectively. There were no significant differences in the AUCs across the tests. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change at various thresholds for decline in scores reached a maximum of 71% for a cut-off of 1 point change on the SCOPA-Cog.ConclusionUsing neuropsychological testing as a gold standard comparator, the performance of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog for detecting decline in non-demented PD patients over a 1-year interval is poor. This has implications for clinical practice; stable scores may not be taken as reassurance of the absence of cognitive decline.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way health care is delivered with significant increases in the use of virtual care. This has raised concerns about possible negative effects on patient experience and access for marginalized populations. Objective: The project aimed to understand patient experience in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic differed by patient sociodemographic characteristics, particularly related to care seeking behaviors and use, comfort, and views of virtual care. Study Design and Analysis: Cross-sectional survey conducted between May and June 2000. We used chi-squared tests to compare responses by patient sociodemographic characteristics. Setting or Dataset: Thirteen family medicine clinics associated with the University of Toronto. Population Studied: All primary care patients with a valid email address on file and a date of birth during the months of March, April or May. Intervention/Instrument: An anonymous web-based survey emailed to patients. Outcome Measures: Access including the proportion of patients who reported seeking urgent care and the timeliness of the urgent appointment. Virtual care experience including the proportion of patients who used various modalities, their comfort levels with it and whether they wanted it to continue post-pandemic. Results: In total, 7482 participants responded to the survey. Most respondents received care during the study period (68%). Those who reported trouble making ends meet and those with lower self-rated health were more likely to report seeking urgent care, but less likely to report receiving a timely appointment. Patients were generally comfortable with phone (92%), video (95%) and email or secure messaging (91%) but those who reported difficulty making ends meet, poor or fair health and arriving in Canada in the last 10 years, were less comfortable with digital modalities and less interested in these options being available into the future as part of their care. Conclusion: Our study suggests that newcomers, those with a lower income, and those reporting lower health have a stronger preference and comfort for in- person primary care. Further research should explore potential barriers to virtual care and equitable access and how these can be addressed., Presenters Payal Agarwal, Tara Kiran, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP, Rick Wang, Christopher Meaney, MSc, Erica Li, MD, MSc, Debbie Elman, MD, CCFP, [...]

BackgroundThe Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.MethodsA clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.ResultsThe tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.ConclusionThe integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.Trial registrationThe registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 .

BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.