Associations Between Low-Value Medication in Dementia and Healthcare Costs.

BACKGROUND: Low-value medications (Lvm) provide little or no benefit to patients, may be harmful, and waste healthcare resources and costs. Although evidence from the literature indicates that Lvm is highly prevalent in dementia, evidence about the financial consequences of Lvm in dementia is limited. This study analyzed the association between receiving Lvm and healthcare costs from a public payers' perspective. METHODS: This analysis is based on data of 516 community-dwelling people living with dementia (PwD). Fourteen Lvm were extracted from dementia-specific guidelines, the German equivalent of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and the PRISCUS list. Healthcare utilization was retrospectively assessed via face-to-face interviews with caregivers and monetarized by standardized unit costs. Associations between Lvm and healthcare costs were analyzed using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: Every third patient (n = 159, 31%) received Lvm. Low-value antiphlogistics, analgesics, anti-dementia drugs, sedatives and hypnotics, and antidepressants alone accounted for 77% of prescribed Lvm. PwD who received Lvm were significantly less cognitively impaired than those not receiving Lvm. Receiving Lvm was associated with higher medical care costs (b = 2959 €; 95% CI 1136-4783; p = 0.001), particularly due to higher hospitalization (b = 1911 €; 95% CI 376-3443; p = 0.015) and medication costs (b = 905 €; 95% CI 454-1357; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lvm were prevalent, more likely occurring in the early stages of dementia, and cause financial harm for payers due to higher direct medical care costs. Further research is required to derive measures to prevent cost-driving Lvm in primary care, that is, implementing deprescribing interventions and moving health expenditures towards higher value resource use.

Inverse association between the anticholinergic burden and hippocampus volume in a population-based cohort across the entire adult age range.

Many medications of different indications have a relevant anticholinergic activity. The anticholinergic burden of medication has been shown to have significant effects on the cognition and the risk for cognitive impairment and dementia particularly in older patients. So far, most of the studies used data from geriatric patients and the effect of the anticholinergic burden on brain structures is still unexplored. Our study aimed to analyze possible associations of hippocampus and cholinergic basal forebrain volumes as vulnerable brain structures for the development of dementia and the anticholinergic burden in a population-based cohort of non-demented participants spanning the adult age range from 21 to 80 years. We analyzed associations between medication-related anticholinergic burden and structural MRI volumes from participants (n = 3087, 52.2% female) of the population-based "Study of Health in Pomerania" (SHIP). Anticholinergic burden was obtained from the current medication plan using the Anticholinergic Burden Scale (ACB). All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, and total intracranial volume. We found statistically significant associations between the ACB and the left and right hippocampus volume but not for the basal forebrain cholinergic system. Complementary voxel-based analysis across all participants revealed FWE-corrected (p = < 0.05) clusters in the temporo-parietal regions reaching into frontal areas, showing reduced volumes with higher ACB scores. We identified an association between anticholinergic burden of medication on hippocampal volume suggesting a potential inverse effect of such medication. This association highlights the importance of a careful prescription of medication with anticholinergic activity at any adult age.

Prevalence of Low-Value Care and Its Associations with Patient-Centered Outcomes in Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care (LvC) is defined as care unlikely to provide a benefit to the patient regarding the patient's preferences, potential harms, costs, or available alternatives. Avoiding LvC and promoting recommended evidence-based treatments, referred to as high-value care (HvC), could improve patient-reported outcomes for people living with dementia (PwD). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the prevalence of LvC and HvC in dementia and the associations of LvC and HvC with patients' quality of life and hospitalization. METHODS: The analysis was based on data of the DelpHi trial and included 516 PwD. Dementia-specific guidelines, the "Choosing Wisely" campaign and the PRISCUS list were used to indicate LvC and HvC treatments, resulting in 347 LvC and HvC related recommendations. Of these, 77 recommendations (51 for LvC, 26 for HvC) were measured within the DelpHi-trial and finally used for this analysis. The association of LvC and HvC treatments with PwD health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and hospitalization was assessed using multiple regression models. RESULTS: LvC was highly prevalent in PwD (31%). PwD receiving LvC had a significantly lower quality of life (b = -0.07; 95% CI -0.14 - -0.01) and were significantly more likely to be hospitalized (OR = 2.06; 95% CI 1.26-3.39). Different HvC treatments were associated with both positive and negative changes in HRQoL. CONCLUSION: LvC could cause adverse outcomes and should be identified as early as possible and tried to be replaced. Future research should examine innovative models of care or treatment pathways supporting the identification and replacement of LvC in dementia.

Burden of caregivers of patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration - a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second-most common cause of young-onset dementia. Personality and behavior changes lead to high caregiver stress and burden, but little support is available. Our aim is to present the evidence on the characteristics, challenges and unmet needs of caregivers as well as on possible interventions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review on caregiver burden using PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect. A total of 69 articles were considered eligible and were analyzed in the present study. RESULTS: Through the analysis of 69 empirical articles, our results show that caregivers of patients with FTLD are often younger in age, have children and find behavioral disturbances to be the most burdensome. Nine studies assessed the needs of and support for caregivers. Ten studies compared the burden in different forms of FTLD, 19 compared FTLD to other types of dementia, and one compared the caregiver burden between two countries. Eight studies reported on interventions for caregivers or interventions taking burden into account. One study assessed the support structure for caregivers of FTLD patients. Five case reports, eight research overviews and three reviews addressed specific needs and challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Further research should reproduce and validate efficacious interventions and focus on underage children of FTLD patients and findings from non-Western countries. Additionally, support structures for FTLD caregivers should be assessed and extended. Awareness both in the wider population and among healthcare professionals is an urgent need for the future.

Why do family dementia caregivers reject caregiver support services? Analyzing types of rejection and associated health-impairments in a cluster-randomized controlled intervention trial.

BACKGROUND: Although there are a number of support services accessible for most family dementia caregivers, many caregivers reject available and affordable support. Previous research suggests that rejections of support services may result from insufficient fit of available services with caregivers' unmet needs and a lack of acknowledgement of caregivers' unmet needs and associated support services. The present study investigates (a) the number, proportion and types of caregivers' rejection on recommended tailored support, (b) socio-demographic and clinical determinants of caregiver's rejection of both people with dementia (PwD) and caregivers, and (c) caregivers' health-related variables related to caregivers' rejection. METHODS: Caregivers' rejection of tailored support services was identified based on a standardized, computerized unmet needs assessment conducted by dementia-specific qualified nurses. The present analysis is based on data of n = 226 dyads of caregivers and their community-dwelling PwD who participated in a general practitioner (GP)-based, cluster-randomized intervention trial. The trial was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Chamber of Physicians of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, registry number BB 20/11. Data analyses were conducted using Stata/IC 13.1. We conducted Welch's t-test, Pearson's product-moment correlation, and conditional negative binomial regression models with random effects for GP to account for over-dispersed count data. RESULTS: In sum, n = 505 unmet needs were identified and the same number of tailored recommendations were identified for n = 171 family dementia caregivers from the intervention group at baseline. For n = 55 family dementia caregivers not a single unmet need and recommendation were identified. A total of 17.6% (n = 89) of the recommendations were rejected by caregivers. Rejection rates of caregivers differed by type of recommendation. Whereas caregivers' rejection rate on recommendations concerning mental health (3.6%), physical health (2.5%), and social, legal, and financial affairs (0%) were low, caregivers' rejection rates concerning social integration (especially caregiver supporting groups) was high (71.7%). Thus, the rejections of family dementia caregivers are mainly linked to the delegation to caregiver supporting groups. Caregivers' rejections were mainly related to personal factors of caregivers (n = 66), service-related factors (n = 6), relational factors (n = 1), and other factors (n = 17). Furthermore, our results showed that the number of caregivers' rejections was associated with a higher functional status of the PwD and are mainly associated with the rejection of caregiver supporting groups. Thus, caregivers visit supporting groups more often when the PwD shows low abilities in activities of daily living. Importantly, this is independent of the status of cognition and depression of the PwD as well as the physical and mental health of the family dementia caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the importance of understanding factors that determine caregivers' rejection of support services. These need to be specifically addressed in tailored solutions for caregivers' support services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01401582 (date: July 25, 2011, prospective registered).

Drug-Related Problems Increase Healthcare Costs for People Living with Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related problems (DRP) are common in the elderly population, especially in people living with dementia (PwD). DRP are associated with adverse outcomes that could result in increased costs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to analyze the association between DRP and healthcare costs in PwD. METHODS: The analysis was based on the cross-sectional data of 424 PwD. Compliance, adverse effects, and drug administration of prescribed and over-the-counter drugs taken were assessed. DRP were identified and classified by pharmacists using an adapted German version of "PIE-Doc®". Healthcare utilization was assessed retrospectively used to calculated costs from a public payer perspective using standardized unit costs. The associations between DRP and healthcare costs were analyzed using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: 394 PwD (93%) had at least one DRP. An inappropriate drug choice was significantly associated with increased total costs (b = 2,718€; CI95% 1,448-3,988) due to significantly higher costs for hospitalization (b = 1,936€; 670-3,202) and for medications (b = 417€; 68-765). Problems with medication dosage and drug interactions were significantly associated with higher medication costs (b = 679€; 31-1,328; and b = 630€; 259-1,001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DRP could significantly lead to adverse outcomes for PwD and healthcare payers, reflected by a higher hospitalization and costs, respectively. Further research is needed to clarify on interventions and approaches efficiently avoiding DRP and on the effect on patient-reported and economic outcomes.

Supporting elderly people with cognitive impairment during and after hospital stays with intersectoral care management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The sectorization of health-care systems leads to inefficient treatment, especially for elderly people with cognitive impairment. The transition from hospital care to primary care is insufficiently coordinated, and communication between health-care providers is often lacking. Consequences include a further deterioration of health, higher rates of hospital readmissions, and institutionalization. Models of collaborative care have shown their efficacy in primary care by improving patient-related outcomes. The main goal of this trial is to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative care model with usual care for people with cognitive impairment who have been admitted to a hospital for treatment due to a somatic illness. The aim of the intervention is to improve the continuity of treatment and care across the transition between the in-hospital and adjoining primary care sectors. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is a longitudinal multisite randomized controlled trial with two arms (care as usual and intersectoral care management). Inclusion criteria at the time of hospital admission due to a somatic illness are age 70+ years, cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Examination, MMSE ≤26), living at home, and written informed consent. Each participant will have a baseline assessment at the hospital and two follow-up assessments at home (3 and 12 months after discharge). The estimated sample size is n = 398 people with cognitive inmpairement plus their respective informal caregivers (where available). In the intersectoral care management group, specialized care managers will develop, implement, and monitor individualized treatment and care based on comprehensive assessments of the unmet needs of the patients and their informal caregivers. These assessments will occur at the hospital and in participants' homes. Primary outcomes are (1) activities of daily living, (2) readmission to the hospital, and (3) institutionalization. Secondary outcomes include (a) frailty, (b) delirium, (c) quality of life, (d) cognitive status, (e) behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, (f) utilization of services, and (g) informal caregiver burden. DISCUSSION: In the event of proving efficacy, this trial will deliver a proof of concept for implementation into routine care. The cost-effectiveness analyses as well as an independent process evaluation will increase the likelihood of meeting this goal. The trial will enable an in-depth analysis of mediating and moderating effects for different health outcomes at the interface between hospital care and primary care. By highlighting treatment and care, the study will provide insights into unmet needs at the time of hospital admission, and the opportunities and barriers to meeting those needs during the hospital stay and after discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03359408 ; December 2, 2017.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative dementia care management-Results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of collaborative dementia care management (DCM). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the data of 444 patients of a cluster-randomized, controlled trial, conceptualized to evaluate a collaborative DCM that aimed to optimize treatment and care in dementia. Health-care resource use, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained were measured over a 24-month time horizon. RESULTS: DCM increased QALYs (+0.05) and decreased costs (-569€) due to a lower hospitalization and a delayed institutionalization (7 months) compared with usual care. The probability of DCM being cost-effective was 88% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 40,000€ per QALY gained and higher in patients living alone compared to those not living alone (96% vs. 26%). DISCUSSION: DCM is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in treating dementia and thus beneficial for public health-care payers and patients, especially for those living alone.

Comorbidity in Dementia Diseases and Associated Health Care Resources Utilization and Cost.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia (PwD) suffer from coexisting medical conditions, creating complex clinical challenges and increasing the risk of poor outcomes, which could be associated with high healthcare cost. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of comorbidity in PwD and to analyze the association between comorbidity in dementia diseases and healthcare costs from a payer's perspective. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis was based on n = 362 PwD of the DelpHi-MV trial (Dementia: Life-and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). Comorbidity was assessed using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and was categorized into low, high, and very high comorbidity. Healthcare resource utilization and unit costs were used to calculate costs. Multivariable regression models were applied to analyze the association between comorbidity and costs. RESULTS: Comorbidity was highly prevalent in the sample. 47% of PwD had a very high, 37% a high, and 16% a low comorbidity in addition to dementia. The most prevalent co-existing comorbidity were diabetes mellitus (42%), peripheral vascular disease (28%) and cerebrovascular disease (25%). Total costs significantly increased by 528€ (SE = 214, CI95 = 109-947, p = 0.014) with each further comorbidity, especially due to higher cost for medication and medical aids. Compared with a low comorbidity, a very high comorbidity was significantly associated with 818€ (SE = 168, CI95 = 489-1147, p < 0.001) higher medication costs and 336€ (SE = 161, CI95 = 20-652, p = 0.037) higher cost for medical aids. There were no significant association between a higher comorbidity and cost for formal care services. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity in PwD represents a substantial financial burden on healthcare payers and is a challenge for patients, healthcare providers, and the health systems. Innovative approaches are needed to achieve a patient-oriented management of treatment and care in comorbid PwD to reduce long-term costs.

Identifying Unmet Needs of Family Dementia Caregivers: Results of the Baseline Assessment of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers providing informal care for people with dementia (PwD) often report unmet needs, burden, and health impairments. Optimal support for family dementia caregivers will likely benefit from better understanding and assessment of the prevalence and types of caregivers' unmet needs and associated socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVE: The present study investigates 1) the number and types of caregivers' unmet needs, 2) socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of both PwD and caregivers, and 3) caregivers' burden and health-related outcomes that are related to caregivers' unmet needs. METHODS: The present analyses are based on cross-sectional data of n = 226 dyads of caregivers and their community-dwelling PwD participating in a comprehensive standardized, computer-based caregivers' needs assessment within a general practitioner (GP)-based, cluster-randomized intervention trial. RESULTS: A total of n = 505 unmet needs were identified for n = 171 caregivers from the intervention group at baseline. Only 24.3% caregivers reported no unmet need (n = 55), whereas 75.7% caregivers had at least one unmet need (n = 171). Caregivers had on average 2.19 unmet needs (mean = 2.19, SD = 2.15). Specifically, 53.1% of caregivers had one up to three unmet needs (n = 120), 18.6% (n = 42) had three up to six unmet needs, and 4.0% (n = 9) had more than six unmet needs. DISCUSSION: Our results underline the importance of a comprehensive needs assessment for family dementia caregivers to develop and implement concepts that can provide family dementia caregivers with optimal support.

Patients with Dementia in Primary Care: Who Is Referred to a Neurologist/Psychiatrist and What Patient-Oriented Factors Are Associated with the Visit?

BACKGROUND: The current guidelines imply that basic medical diagnostics for dementia should be provided by general practitioners in cooperation with other specialists such as neurologists and psychiatrists. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this paper were to 1) compare the dementia patients of general practice residents whose care is co-managed by neurology/psychiatry residents with those whose care is not; 2) identify the patient variables associated with the utilization of neurological and psychiatric specialists; and 3) describe the frequency of imaging used for dementia patients in primary care. METHODS: The analyses utilized data from 485 individuals who screened positive for dementia in primary care (PWD). Clinical variables and the utilization of specialists were assessed via medical records and face-to-face interviews. The factors associated with the utilization of specialists were assessed using multivariate linear regression and included age, sex, relationship status, cognitive impairment, depression, activities of daily living, and formal diagnosis of dementia. RESULTS: Our results show that 89 out of 485 study participants (18.4%) were referred to specialists 12 months prior to assessment. Of these 89 individuals, 14.6% (n = 13) did not receive imaging diagnostics, while 39.3% (n = 35) received brain imaging by CT scan and 46.1% (n = 41) by MRI. PWD referred to specialists differed from those not referred, in age, relationship status, and the presence of a formal diagnosis. Our multivariate analysis revealed that younger age (OR = 0.95; 95% -confidence interval 0.90-0.99; p = 0.04) and higher functional impairment (OR = 1.15; 95% -confidence interval 1.02-1.30; p = 0.02) were associated with a visit to a specialist. DISCUSSION: Only 1 out of every 4 to 5 individuals who have screened positive for dementia have visited a specialist in psychiatry or neurology. While in general, women utilized specialists less often than men, younger and more functionally impaired patients were more likely to be sent to a specialist by their treating general practitioner. Almost 90% of the patients sent to a specialist received cranial neuroimaging, suggesting high adherence to diagnostic guidelines in specialized care.

Healthcare utilization and costs in primary care patients with dementia: baseline results of the DelpHi-trial.

The objectives of this cross-sectional analysis were to determine healthcare resource utilization and cost for community-dwelling patients with dementia (PWD) from a payer's and societal perspective, and to analyze the associations between costs and sociodemographic and clinical variables. Analysis of healthcare costs from a payer's perspective was based on a sample of 425 PWD, analysis of healthcare costs from societal perspective on a subsample of 254 PWD and their informal caregivers. Frequency of healthcare resource utilization was assessed by means of questionnaires. Informal care and productivity losses were assessed by using the Resource Utilization in Dementia questionnaire (RUD). Costs were monetarized using standardized unit costs. To analyze the associations, multiple linear regression models were used. Total annual costs per PWD valued 7016€ from a payer's and 25,877€ from a societal perspective, meaning that societal cost is approximately three and a half times as much as payer's expenditures. Costs valuated 5456 € for medical treatments, 1559 € for formal care, 18,327€ for informal care. Productivity losses valued 1297€ for PWD caregivers. Informal care could vary substantially (-21%; +33%) concerning different valuation methods. Medical care costs decreased significantly with progression of dementia and with age. Costs of care double over the stages of dementia. Formal care costs were significantly higher for PWD living alone and informal care costs significantly lower for PWD with an employed caregiver. For all cost categories, deficits in daily living activities were major cost drivers.

Patient Variables Associated with the Assignment of a Formal Dementia Diagnosis to Positively Screened Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Main objective was to analyze the associations of patient variables (depression, quality of life, anti-dementia drug treatment, knowledge about dementia) with the assignment of a formal diagnosis of dementia to community-dwelling primary care patients who have screened positive for dementia. METHODS: DelpHi-MV (Dementia: life- and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) is a general practitioner based randomized controlled intervention trial. Present analyses are based on cross-sectional data of 319 positively screened patients (age 70+, living at home) who had not been formally diagnosed with dementia before the screening. The medical diagnoses (ICD-10) were retrieved from the patient's medical records. Depression (Geriatric Depression Scale; GDS), quality of life in Alzheimer's disease (Qol-AD), knowledge about dementia, and anti-dementia drug treatment were assessed after the screening test at the baseline examination. RESULTS: At the baseline examination, 171 out of 319 patients (54%) had been formally diagnosed with dementia after they have screened positive. Univariate comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between diagnosed and undiagnosed patients regarding depression (GDS≥6: 11% vs. 15%; p=0.396), quality of life (mean (SD): 2.8 (0.3) vs. 2.8 (0.4); p=0.833), and the knowledge about dementia (75% vs. 75%; p>0.999). Patients who had received a formal diagnosis were more often treated with anti-dementia drugs (20% vs. 11%; p=0.040). Multivariate analyses controlled for confounding variables confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Present findings do not support concerns that the assignment of a formal dementia diagnosis after screening is associated with potential harms. If confirmed in a prospective study, our data would suggest that patients may benefit from being formally diagnosed regarding anti-dementia drug treatment.

Effectiveness and Safety of Dementia Care Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Dementia care management (DCM) can increase the quality of care for people with dementia. Methodologically rigorous clinical trials on DCM are lacking. Objective: To test the effectiveness and safety of DCM in the treatment and care of people with dementia living at home and caregiver burden (when available). Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, general practitioner-based, cluster-randomized intervention trial compared the intervention with care as usual at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. Simple 1:1 randomization of general practices in Germany was used. Analyses were intent to treat and per protocol. In total, 6838 patients were screened for dementia (eligibility: 70 years and older and living at home) from January 1, 2012, to March 31, 2016. Overall, 1167 (17.1%) were diagnosed as having dementia, and 634 (9.3%) provided written informed consent to participate. Interventions: Dementia care management was provided for 6 months at the homes of patients with dementia. Dementia care management is a model of collaborative care, defined as a complex intervention aiming to provide optimal treatment and care for patients with dementia and support caregivers using a computer-assisted assessment determining a personalized array of intervention modules and subsequent success monitoring. Dementia care management was targeted at the individual patient level and was conducted by 6 study nurses with dementia care-specific qualifications. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life, caregiver burden, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, pharmacotherapy with antidementia drugs, and use of potentially inappropriate medication. Results: The mean age of 634 patients was 80 years. A total of 407 patients received the intended treatment and were available for primary outcome measurement. Of these patients, 248 (60.9%) were women, and 204 (50.1%) lived alone. Dementia care management significantly decreased behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (b = -7.45; 95% CI, -11.08 to -3.81; P < .001) and caregiver burden (b = -0.50; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.08; P = .045) compared with care as usual. Patients with dementia receiving DCM had an increased chance of receiving antidementia drug treatment (DCM, 114 of 291 [39.2%] vs care as usual, 31 of 116 [26.7%]) after 12 months (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.94; P = .03). Dementia care management significantly increased quality of life (b = 0.08; 95% CI, 0 to 0.17; P = .03) for patients not living alone but did not increase quality of life overall. There was no effect on potentially inappropriate medication (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 0.62 to 3.62; P = .97). Conclusions and Relevance: Dementia care management provided by specifically trained nurses is an effective collaborative care model that improves relevant patient- and caregiver-related outcomes in dementia. Implementing DCM in different health care systems should become an active area of research. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01401582.

Dementia care management in primary care : Current collaborative care models and the case for interprofessional education.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is one of the most prevalent diseases in the older population. Various dementia care models have been developed to address patient's healthcare needs. They can be described as "collaborative care" or "person-centered care". Referring to the needs of the workforce working with persons with dementia, a key element is the use of interprofessional education (IPE). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe different international collaborative care models to define a minimum standard of healthcare professions for collaborative dementia care in primary care. This helps to identify requirements for IPE to optimize care of people with dementia and to support informal caregivers in the future. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this article six dementia care models from 4 different countries (Germany, USA, UK and Netherlands) are described and compared regarding aims, interventions and healthcare professionals involved. RESULTS: Care teams are minimally comprised of general practitioners or primary care providers, nurses, and social workers. Additional healthcare disciplines may be involved for specific interventions. Mostly, care team members received specific training but such training did not necessarily incorporate the IPE approach. To ensure successful collaboration of professions, IPE training programs should at least consist of the following core topics: (1) early diagnosis, (2) postdiagnostic support, (3) advanced care planning for patients and caregivers and (4) effective collaborative care. CONCLUSION: The IPE programs for dementia should be expanded and must be widely implemented in order to assess the impact on collaborative practice. This study will provide the knowledge base for structuring IPE trainings developing educational agendas and adapting existing guidelines to improve collaborative dementia care in the future.

Relatives' burden of caring for people screened positive for dementia in primary care : Results of the DelpHi study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data describing caregiver burden in primary care where most (informal) caregiving is provided. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the paper are to describe the burden of people caring for persons with dementia (PWD) in primary care in multiple dimensions and to analyze factors associated with specific dimensions of caregiver burden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analyses are based on cross-sectional data of the general physician-based, cluster-randomized, controlled intervention trial DelpHi-MV (Dementia: life and person-centered help). A sample of n = 310 community dwelling PWD screened positive for dementia (DemTect < 9) and their caregivers provided sociodemographic and disease-related data, caregiver burden was assessed in 20 dimensions using the Berlin inventory on relatives' burden in dementia (Berliner Inventar zur Angehörigenbelastung - Demenz, BIZA-D). RESULTS: Depending on the dimension of objective burden due to caring, between 71.3 % and 92.3 % of the caregivers reported an objective burden. The average burden ranged from 3.68 to 9.81 (scale range 0-16). The subjective burden due to caring ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 (scale range 0-4). Between 22.6 and 51.6 % of our sample indicated burdens due to perceived conflicts. Logistic regression models associating caregiver burden with specifics of PWD and caregivers reached statistical significance for nearly all dimensions of the BIZA-D. Functional and cognitive impairment were statistically significant factors in 12 out of 20 and 5 out of 20 dimensions, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is first quantitative in-depth analysis of burden for caregiver of people screened positive for dementia in primary care in Germany. In general, caregiver burden was perceived as being low to moderate by caregivers and lower than reported from other settings.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Community-Dwelling Primary Care Patients who were Screened Positive for Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in older people is a risk factor for adverse drug effects. This risk is even higher in older people with dementia (PWD). OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine (1) the prevalence of PIM among primary care patients who were screened positive for dementia and (2) the sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with the use of PIM. METHODS: DelpHi-MV (Dementia: life- and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) is a general practitioner-based, cluster-randomized, controlled intervention study to implement and evaluate an innovative concept of collaborative dementia care management in Germany. The comprehensive baseline assessment includes a home medication review. The present analyses are based on the data from 448 study participants (age 70+, DemTect <9). PIMs were identified using the list of Potentially Inappropriate Medications in the Elderly (Priscus). RESULTS: (1) A total of 99 study participants (22%) received at least one PIM. The highest prevalence was found for antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and analgetics. The most frequently prescribed PIMs were amitriptyline, etoricoxib, and doxazosin. (2) Use of a PIM was significantly associated with a diagnosis of a mental or behavioral disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The prescription rate of PIMs for community-dwelling PWD was comparable with the rates found for the general population of older people in Germany (20-29%). Antidepressants with anticholinergic properties and long-acting benzodiazepines were the most prescribed PIMs, despite having an unfavorable benefit-risk ratio. This high prevalence of PIM prescriptions in a vulnerable population of PWD indicates that standard care for dementia should include careful medication review and management.

Systematic, early identification of dementia and dementia care management are highly appreciated by general physicians in primary care - results within a cluster-randomized-controlled trial (DelpHi).

BACKGROUND: There is evidence about the benefits of early detection of dementia and subsequent provision of adequate treatment and care. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the acceptance of detection and intervention procedures. These analyses describe the attitudes of general physicians [GPs] toward 1) dementia in general, 2) systematic detection of people with dementia, and 3) an intervention approach after they have experienced both. Comparisons are made based on experience with systematic screening and dementia-specific intervention. METHODS: Postal, cross-sectional survey to all n=1,252 GPs in the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany. A subsample was drawn based on participation in the randomized, controlled, prospective intervention DelpHi-MV trial (Dementia: life- and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). In this trial, systematic screening is implemented and an intervention group receives support through dementia care management (DCM). GPs were categorized into either GPs with DCM and systematic screening (DCM-GP), GPs with systematic screening only (DelpHi-GP), or GPs not participating in the trial. Data from n=257 GPs were available. Attitudes toward dementia were assessed using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: There was strong agreement toward the helpfulness of implementing a brief cognitive screening test (89.9% agreed). Approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they had identified at least some patients as being cognitively impaired for the first time. The majority of the respondents indicated agreement toward DCM. It was described as supportive and helpful. The qualified nurses were perceived as competent in dementia care and 79.3% would like to be supported with DCM. Attitudes toward dementia are positive and do not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that early recognition and DCM is highly appreciated by GPs and is considered feasible or wanted to be implemented in routine care.

Living Alone with Dementia: Prevalence, Correlates and the Utilization of Health and Nursing Care Services.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the proportion and the characteristics of community-dwelling people with dementia (PWD) living alone in Germany. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the prevalence of PWD living alone (with and without the support of an informal caregiver) and socio-demographical and clinical characteristics as well as health and nursing care utilization associated with living alone. METHODS: DelpHi-MV (Dementia: Life- and person-centered help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) is a general practitioner-based, randomized controlled intervention trial. The present analyses are based on baseline data of 511 patients (≥70 years, community-dwelling) who had screened positive for dementia (DemTect <9). RESULTS: N = 251 (51%) of the patients lived alone. PWD living alone were statistically significantly more often female, older, and more often widowed than those not living alone. About 9% of the patients (n = 24) were not supported by any informal caregiver. Regarding the clinical variables (cognitive and functional impairment, depression, falls, number of drug-related problems, malnutrition, quality of life), there were no statistically significant group differences. Patients living alone utilized professional services such as home care, help with medication, home-delivered meals, or housekeeping assistance significantly more often. Multivariate analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal the high proportion of PWD living alone in Germany. PWD living alone did not seem to be at an increased health risk. Our findings indicate that living alone with dementia is possible. In order to ensure the sufficient provision of health and nursing care services for PWD living alone, providers should consider the present results for future planning.