Understanding diagnostic settings and carer experiences for dementia diagnosis in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines advocate referral to comprehensive memory services for dementia diagnosis, but many patients may be diagnosed elsewhere. AIMS: To determine common settings for dementia diagnosis in Australia and to compare patient and carer experience between settings. METHODS: Exploratory cross-sectional study of patients with dementia admitted to a Melbourne sub-acute hospital. Patients who had capacity to participate were included; carers were recruited for patients without capacity. Participants completed an interviewer-administered survey which asked them to recall the diagnostic setting, discussions about diagnosis and management (clinical care) and overall experience of diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were applied and open-ended questions were analysed using inductive and deductive coding approaches. RESULTS: From 81 eligible participants, 74 consented to participate (one patient, 74 carers). Participants reported dementia diagnosis occurred a median of 24 months before interview, in the following settings: hospitals (31.3%), private specialist clinics (29.7%), memory clinics (14.9%), general practice (13.5%), community health services (9.5%) and residential care (1.4%). Recall of discussions about dementia-modulating medications was higher in participants diagnosed in memory clinics and private specialist clinics (70%) compared to other settings (15%) (P < 0.001). Discussion about living circumstances was highest in hospitals (87% vs 40%) (P < 0.001). One third of participants reported dissatisfaction with their experience. Reported satisfaction was highest for memory clinics. CONCLUSION: Results suggest majority of people with dementia are diagnosed outside memory services. Significant variability exists in experiences between services, with a high proportion of participants expressing dissatisfaction with their experience with dementia diagnosis. Strategies to standardise diagnosis of dementia, measure and improve quality of care across all settings are required.

Diagnosis of dementia in Australia: a narrative review of services and models of care.

Objective There is an impetus for the timely diagnosis of dementia to enable optimal management of patients, carers and government resources. This is of growing importance in the setting of a rising prevalence of dementia in an aging population. The Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines and Principles of Care for People with Dementia advocate referral to comprehensive memory services for dementia diagnosis, but in practice many patients may be diagnosed in other settings. The aim of the present study was to obtain evidence of the roles, effectiveness, limitations and accessibility of current settings and services available for dementia diagnosis in Australia. Methods A literature review was performed by searching Ovid MEDLINE using the terms 'dementia' AND 'diagnosis OR detection'. In addition, articles from pertinent sources, such as Australian government reports and relevant websites (e.g. Dementia Australia) were included in the review. Results Literature was found for dementia diagnosis across general practice, hospitals, memory clinics, specialists, community, care institutions and new models. General practitioners are patients' preferred health professionals when dealing with dementia, but gaps in symptom recognition and initiation of cognitive testing lead to underdiagnosis. Hospitals are opportunistic places for dementia screening, but time constraints and acute medical issues hinder efficient dementia diagnosis. Memory clinics offer access to multidisciplinary skills, demonstrate earlier dementia diagnosis and potential cost-effectiveness, but are disadvantaged by organisational complexities. Specialists have increased confidence in diagnosing dementia than generalists, but drawbacks include long wait lists. Aged care assessment teams (ACAT) are a potential service for dementia diagnosis in the community. A multidisciplinary model for dementia diagnosis in care institutions is potentially beneficial, but is time and cost intensive. New models with technology allow dementia diagnosis in rural regions. Conclusion Memory clinics are most effective for formal dementia diagnosis, but healthcare professionals in other settings play vital roles in recognising patients with dementia and initiating investigations and referrals to appropriate services. What is known about this topic? Delays in dementia diagnosis are common, and it is unclear where majority of patients receive a diagnosis of dementia in Australia. While the Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines and Principles of Care for People with Dementia advocate referrals to services such as memory clinics for comprehensive assessment and diagnosis of dementia, such services may have limited capacity and may not be readily accessible to all. What does this paper add? This paper presents an overview of the various settings and services available for dementia diagnosis in Australia including evidence of the roles, accessibility, effectiveness and limitations of each setting. What are the implications for practitioners? This concerns a disease that is highly prevalent and escalating, and highlights the roles for practitioners in various settings including general practices, acute hospitals, specialist clinics, community and nursing homes. In particular, it discusses the potential roles, advantages and challenges of dementia diagnosis in each setting.

The Study of Neurocognitive Outcomes, Radiological and Retinal Effects of Aspirin in Sleep Apnoea- rationale and methodology of the SNORE-ASA study.

PURPOSE: Sleep disordered breathing (SDB) is highly prevalent in older adults. Increasing evidence links SDB to the risk of dementia, mediated via a number of pathways, some of which may be attenuated by low-dose aspirin. This study will evaluate, in a healthy older cohort, the prospective relationship between SDB and cognitive function, changes in retinal and cerebral microvasculature, and determine whether low-dose aspirin ameliorates the effects of SDB on these outcomes over 3years. DESIGN: SNORE-ASA is a sub-study of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomised, multi-centre, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effect of daily 100mg aspirin on disability-free and dementia-free survival in the healthy older adult aged 70 and over. At baseline, 1400 ASPREE participants successfully underwent a home sleep study with a home sleep study screening device for SDB; and 296 underwent both 1.5 Tesla brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and retinal vascular imaging (RVI). Cognitive testing, brain MRI and RVI is being repeated after 3years. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the modified mini-mental state examination score. Secondary outcome measures are changes in other cognitive tests, and changes in abnormal parameters on RVI and volume of white matter hyper-intensities on brain MRI. CONCLUSION: Identifying preventive therapies for delaying the onset of dementia is of paramount importance. The results of this study will help clarify the impact of the SDB on risk of cognitive decline and cerebral small vessel disease, and whether low-dose aspirin can ameliorate cognitive decline in the setting of SDB. SNORE-ASA TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000891820: The Principal ASPREE study is registered with the International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trials Register, ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly, Number: ISRCTN83772183 and clinicaltrials.gov Number NCT01038583.

Health perspectives: international epidemiology of ageing.

Populations globally are ageing, in part due to dramatic increases in life expectancies, forcing a reconsideration of what constitutes being "elderly" and "old." The proportion of older adults living with disability may be decreasing, yet older individuals are living with a significant burden of chronic disease, geriatric impairments in cognition, vision and hearing and reduced physiological reserve (frailty). Caring for a growing number of medically complex individuals has implications for medical workforce size and composition, health programmes and expenditure. Future responses to an ageing population will require further innovation in health-care delivery models, and increasing representation of older adults in clinical trials.

The efficacy and safety of alprazolam versus other benzodiazepines in the treatment of panic disorder.

We performed a meta-analysis of all single- or double-blind, randomized controlled trials comparing alprazolam to another benzodiazepine in the treatment of adult patients meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third or Fourth Edition, criteria for panic disorder or agoraphobia with panic attacks. Eight studies met inclusion criteria, describing a total of at least 631 randomized patients. In the pooled results, there were no significant differences in efficacy between alprazolam and the comparator benzodiazepines on any of the prespecified outcomes: improvement in mean panic attack frequency (between-arm weighted mean difference of 0.6 panic attacks per week; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3 to 1.6), improvement in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score (weighted mean difference of 0.8 points; 95% CI, -0.5 to 2.1), and proportion of patients free of panic attacks at the final evaluation (pooled relative risk, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4). Statistical heterogeneity on prespecified outcomes was not eliminated by stratification on baseline anxiety level. The available evidence fails to demonstrate alprazolam as superior to other benzodiazepines for the treatment of panic disorder.