D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Although several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad. SETTING: Four clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Eighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: NPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims. RESULTS: The results will be reported in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: D-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.

Patterns and predictors of follow-up in patients with mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to identify factors that influence follow-up for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). METHODS: One hundred and ninety-nine consecutive inpatients diagnosed with MTBI at a Trauma Centre (or TC) were monitored for establishment of care with a brain injury specialist after discharge. Bivariate statistics were calculated to determine subject characteristics impacting the decision to pursue TBI-related specialty care. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients (59.8%) followed up with the TC for routine post-injury care. Patients who followed up were older (age >40: OR = 2.48, p = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.03-8.96) and had longer hospital lengths of stay (LOS > 3 days: OR = 2.99, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.33-7.67). Upon follow-up, providers identified 20 patients (16.8%) with persistent neurologic symptoms, seven (3.5%) of whom saw a brain injury specialist. Lack of insurance significantly decreased the likelihood of follow-up with the TC and/or establishment of care with a TBI specialist. (OR = 0.76, p = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.62-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Being insured was strongly predictive for follow-up at the TC and for establishing with a brain injury specialist post-MTBI. The TC post-injury visit identified MTBI patients with persistent symptoms, suggesting post-acute TC follow-up is an important venue for MTBI sequelae screening and referral.