Measuring and Quantifying Collateral Information in Psychiatry: Development and Preliminary Validation of the McLean Collateral Information and Clinical Actionability Scale.

BACKGROUND: The review of collateral information is an essential component of patient care. Although this is standard practice, minimal research has been done to quantify collateral information collection and to understand how collateral information translates to clinical decision making. To address this, we developed and piloted a novel measure (the McLean Collateral Information and Clinical Actionability Scale [M-CICAS]) to evaluate the types and number of collateral sources viewed and the resulting actions made in a psychiatric setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the feasibility of the M-CICAS, validate this measure against clinician notes via medical records, and evaluate whether reviewing a higher volume of collateral sources is associated with more clinical actions taken. METHODS: For the M-CICAS, we developed a three-part instrument, focusing on measuring collateral sources reviewed, clinical actions taken, and shared decision making between the clinician and patient. To determine feasibility and preliminary validity, we piloted this measure among clinicians providing psychotherapy at McLean Hospital. These clinicians (n=7) completed the M-CICAS after individual clinical sessions with 89 distinct patient encounters. Scales were completed by clinicians only once for each patient during routine follow-up visits. After clinicians completed these scales, researchers conducted chart reviews by completing the M-CICAS using only the clinician's corresponding note from that session. For the analyses, we generated summary scores for the number of collateral sources and clinical actions for each encounter. We examined Pearson correlation coefficients to assess interrater reliability between clinicians and chart reviewers, and simple univariate regression modeling followed by multilevel mixed effects regression modeling to test the relationship between collateral information accessed and clinical actions taken. RESULTS: The study staff had high interrater reliability on the M-CICAS for the sources reviewed (r=0.98; P<.001) and actions taken (r=0.97; P<.001). Clinician and study staff ratings were moderately correlated and statistically significant on the M-CICAS summary scores for the sources viewed (r=0.24, P=.02 and r=0.25, P=.02, respectively). Univariate regression modeling with a two-tailed test demonstrated a significant association between collateral sources and clinical actions taken when clinicians completed the M-CICAS (ß=.27; t87=2.47; P=.02). The multilevel fixed slopes random intercepts model confirmed a significant association even when accounting for clinician differences (ß=.23; t57=2.13; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study established the feasibility and preliminary validity of the M-CICAS in assessing collateral sources and clinical decision making in psychiatry. This study also indicated that reviewing more collateral sources may lead to an increased number of clinical actions following a session.

LIVE@Home.Path-innovating the clinical pathway for home-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers: study protocol for a mixed-method, stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The global health challenge of dementia is exceptional in size, cost and impact. It is the only top ten cause of death that cannot be prevented, cured or substantially slowed, leaving disease management, caregiver support and service innovation as the main targets for reduction of disease burden. Institutionalization of persons with dementia is common in western countries, despite patients preferring to live longer at home, supported by caregivers. Such complex health challenges warrant multicomponent interventions thoroughly implemented in daily clinical practice. This article describes the rationale, development, feasibility testing and implementation process of the LIVE@Home.Path trial. METHODS: The LIVE@Home.Path trial is a 2-year, multicenter, mixed-method, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial, aiming to include 315 dyads of home-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers, recruited from 3 municipalities in Norway. The stepped-wedge randomization implies that all dyads receive the intervention, but the timing is determined by randomization. The control group constitutes the dyads waiting for the intervention. The multicomponent intervention was developed in collaboration with user-representatives, researchers and stakeholders to meet the requirements from the national Dementia Plan 2020. During the 6-month intervention period, the participants will be allocated to a municipal coordinator, the core feature of the intervention, responsible for regular contact with the dyads to facilitate L: Learning, I: Innovation, V: Volunteering and E: Empowerment (LIVE). The primary outcome is resource utilization. This is measured by the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument and the Relative Stress Scale (RSS), reflecting that resource utilization is more than the actual time required for caring but also how burdensome the task is experienced by the caregiver. DISCUSSION: We expect the implementation of LIVE to lead to a pathway for dementia treatment and care which is cost-effective, compared to treatment as usual, and will support high-quality independent living, at home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04043364. Registered on 15 March 2019.

Analgesic treatments in people with dementia - how safe are they? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: People with dementia may be unable to verbally express pain and suffer from untreated pain. Use of analgesics in people with dementia has increased during the last decade, in particular opioid analgesics with high potential for adverse effects. AREAS COVERED: This article presents a systematic review of the current evidence for safety and tolerability of analgesic drugs from randomized controlled trials in people with dementia. Relevant trials were identified by a literature search in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from inception to November 2018. The search included the main terms 'dementia' and 'analgesic' or their subterms, and was filtered to limit results to clinical trials. EXPERT OPINION: Although pain treatment is increasingly recognized as an important clinical issue in people with advanced dementia, there is currently a lack of evidence to support safety evaluations of commonly used analgesics in this group. To inform treatment decisions and enable care providers to appropriately monitor patients at risk of adverse effects, it is necessary to conduct well-designed clinical trials to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of analgesics in people with dementia, with particular emphasis on harmful effects of long-term opioid use as well as short-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.