Doing the Right Thing? General Practitioners' Considerations in Achieving a Timely Dementia Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Timely detection and diagnosis of dementia are beneficial for providing appropriate, anticipatory care and preventing acute situations. However, initiating diagnostic testing is a complex and dynamic process that requires general practitioners (GPs) to balance competing priorities. Previously identified barriers, such as a lack of time, knowledge, and resources, may not fully represent the challenges involved in this process. Therefore, this study aimed to examine GPs' more implicit considerations on starting the diagnostic trajectory for dementia. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 14 Dutch GPs who were purposively selected through maximum variation sampling. The interview transcripts were inductively analyzed in multiple rounds by a multidisciplinary research team using thematic analysis. RESULTS: GPs' considerations on starting the diagnostic trajectory for dementia can be summarized in three main themes that are interconnected: (1) 'the presumed patient's willingness', that is, facing a dilemma of wanting to respect patient autonomy in cases of denial or an absence of a diagnostic request, while at the same time identifying a problem and feeling the urgency to act; (2) 'the GP's attempt not to harm', that is, balancing between not wanting to harm the patient and/or relatives with the burdensome label of dementia and with the possible negative consequences of a late diagnosis; and (3) 'time, trust, and interprofessional collaboration influence timeliness of diagnostic work-up', that is, time available for consultations, time as a diagnostic factor, GP's diagnostic confidence, and trustful physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that important ethical dilemmas regarding patient autonomy and the principle of doing no harm lie behind practical GP barriers to initiating diagnostic testing for dementia. Time, trust, and interprofessional collaboration were found to facilitate GPs in determining the right decision and timing with each individual patient and their relatives. Future research could explore the value of diagnostic decision aids that explicitly involve patients and their relatives in this balancing act.

[Limited cognitive assessment in primary care: are GP referrals to the memory clinic always appropriate?] / Weinig cognitieve diagnostiek in de eerste lijn.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether referrals of general practitioners (GPs) to the memory clinic align with the regional and national dementia guidelines. DESIGN: For this single center retrospective study, data was collected from electronic patient files. METHOD: GP referrals to the memory clinic over a 1-year period were categorized and evaluated according to the regional and national guidelines. RESULTS: 310 GP referrals were included with the most common referral motivations: "Additional somatic or psychiatric factors" (77; 24,8%) and "Straightforward dementia diagnosis" (70; 22,6%). A total of 51,0% of referrals were not in line with regional guidelines: either because of non-compliant referral reasons; or limited cognitive assessment without clinical findings and/or cognitive testing. CONCLUSION: Half of GP referrals to the memory clinic were not in line with the national and regional guidelines. Referrals were often not preceded by clinical findings and/or cognitive testing. Aiming for effective care, cognitive assessments in primary care should be encouraged and with appropriate assistance.

Recognition of cognitive dysfunction in hospitalised older patients: a flash mob study.

BACKGROUND: It is important that healthcare professionals recognise cognitive dysfunction in hospitalised older patients in order to address associated care needs, such as enhanced involvement of relatives and extra cognitive and functional support. However, studies analysing medical records suggest that healthcare professionals have low awareness of cognitive dysfunction in hospitalised older patients. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of cognitive dysfunction in hospitalised older patients, the percentage of patients in which cognitive dysfunction was recognised by healthcare professionals, and which variables were associated with recognition. METHODS: A multicentre, nationwide, cross-sectional observational study was conducted on a single day using a flash mob study design in thirteen university and general hospitals in the Netherlands. Cognitive function was assessed in hospitalised patients aged ≥ 65 years old, who were admitted to medical and surgical wards. A Mini-Cog score of < 3 out of 5 indicated cognitive dysfunction. The attending nurses and physicians were asked whether they suspected cognitive dysfunction in their patient. Variables associated with recognition of cognitive dysfunction were assessed using multilevel and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: 347 of 757 enrolled patients (46%) showed cognitive dysfunction. Cognitive dysfunction was recognised by attending nurses in 137 of 323 patients (42%) and by physicians in 156 patients (48%). In 135 patients (42%), cognitive dysfunction was not recognised by either the attending nurse or physician. Recognition of cognitive dysfunction was better at a lower Mini-Cog score, with the best recognition in patients with the lowest scores. Patients with a Mini-Cog score < 3 were best recognised in the geriatric department (69% by nurses and 72% by physicians). CONCLUSION: Cognitive dysfunction is common in hospitalised older patients and is poorly recognised by healthcare professionals. This study highlights the need to improve recognition of cognitive dysfunction in hospitalised older patients, particularly in individuals with less apparent cognitive dysfunction. The high proportion of older patients with cognitive dysfunction suggests that it may be beneficial to provide care tailored to cognitive dysfunction for all hospitalised older patients.