Barriers and facilitators to nursing delirium screening in older emergency patients: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: delirium is common in older emergency department (ED) patients, but vastly under-recognised, in part due to lack of standardised screening processes. Understanding local context and barriers to delirium screening are integral for successful implementation of a delirium screening protocol. OBJECTIVES: we sought to identify barriers and facilitators to delirium screening by nurses in older ED patients. METHODS: we conducted 15 semi-structured, face-to-face interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework with bedside nurses, nurse educators and managers at two academic EDs in 2017. Two research assistants independently coded transcripts. Relevant domains and themes were identified. RESULTS: a total of 717 utterances were coded into 14 domains. Three dominant themes emerged: (i) lack of clinical prioritisation because of competing demands, lack of time and heavy workload; (ii) discordance between perceived capabilities and knowledge and (iii) hospital culture. CONCLUSION: this qualitative study explored nursing barriers and facilitators to delirium screening in older ED patients. We found that delirium was recognised as an important clinical problem; however, it was not clinically prioritised; there was a false self-perception of knowledge and ability to recognise delirium and hospital culture was a strong influencer of behaviour. Successful adoption of a delirium screening protocol will only be realised if these issues are addressed.

Quality assurance as a foundational element for an integrated system of dementia care.

PURPOSE: Many countries are developing primary care collaborative memory clinics (PCCMCs) to address the rising challenge of dementia. Previous research suggests that quality assurance should be a foundational element of an integrated system of dementia care. The purpose of this paper is to understand physicians' and specialists' perspectives on such a system and identify barriers to its implementation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors used interviews and a constructivist framework to understand the perspectives on a quality assurance framework for dementia care and barriers to its implementation from ten primary care and ten specialist physicians affiliated with PCCMCs. FINDINGS: Interviewees found that the framework reflects quality dementia care, though most could not relate quality assurance to clinical practice. Quality assurance was viewed as an imposition on practitioners rather than as a measure of system integration. Disparities in resources among providers were seen as barriers to quality care. Greater integration with specialists was seen as a potential quality improvement mechanism. Standardized electronic medical records were seen as important to support both quality assurance and clinical care. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This work identified several challenges to the implementation of a quality assurance framework to support an integrated system of dementia care. Clinicians require education to better understand quality assurance. Additional challenges include inadequate resources, a need for closer collaboration between specialists and PCCMCs, and a need for a standardized electronic medical record. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Greater health system integration is necessary to provide quality dementia care, and quality assurance could be considered a foundational element driving system integration.

An International Approach to Enhancing a National Guideline on Driving and Dementia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study was to update a national guideline on assessing drivers with dementia, addressing limitations of previous versions which included a lack of developmental rigor and stakeholder involvement. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary team reviewed 104 different recommendations from 12 previous guidelines on assessing drivers with dementia in light of a recent review of the literature. Revised guideline recommendations were drafted by consensus. A preliminary draft was sent to specialist physician and occupational therapy groups for feedback, using an a priori definition of 90% agreement as consensus. RECENT FINDINGS: The research team drafted 23 guideline recommendations, and responses were received from 145 stakeholders. No recommendation was endorsed by less than 80% of respondents, and 14 (61%) of the recommendations were endorsed by more than 90%.The recommendations are presented in the manuscript. The revised guideline incorporates the perspectives of consensus of an expert group as well as front-line clinicians who regularly assess drivers with dementia. The majority of the recommendations were based on evidence at the level of expert opinion, revealing gaps in the evidence and future directions for research.

Computer-Based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool With Mail Support: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often find significant challenges in assessing automobile driving in persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia and deciding when to report to transportation administrators. Care must be taken to balance the safety of patients and other road users with potential negative effects of issuing such reports. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool (DD-DT) increased appropriate reporting of patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators. METHODS: The study used a parallel-group cluster nonblinded randomized controlled trial design to test a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention. The intervention included a computer-based decision support system activated by the physician-user, which provides a recommendation about whether to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, based on an algorithm derived from earlier work. The intervention also included a mailed educational package and Web-based specialized reporting forms. Specialists and family physicians with expertise in dementia or care of the elderly were stratified by sex and randomized to either use the DD-DT or a control version of the tool that required identical data input as the intervention group, but instead generated a generic reminder about the reporting legislation in Ontario, Canada. The trial ran from September 9, 2014 to January 29, 2016, and the primary outcome was the number of reports made to the transportation administrators concordant with the algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 69 participating physicians were randomized, and 36 of these used the DD-DT; 20 of the 35 randomized to the intervention group used DD-DT with 114 patients, and 16 of the 34 randomized to the control group used it with 103 patients. The proportion of all assessed patients reported to the transportation administrators concordant with recommendation did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (50% vs 49%; Z=-0.19, P=.85). Two variables predicted algorithm-based reporting-caregiver concern (odds ratio [OR]=5.8, 95% CI 2.5-13.6, P<.001) and abnormal clock drawing (OR 6.1, 95% CI 3.1-11.8, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this quantitative analysis, in-office abnormal clock drawing and expressions of concern about driving from caregivers substantially influenced physicians to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, but the DD-DT tool itself did not increase such reports among these expert physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02036099; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036099 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zGMF1ky8).

Optimizing medications in older adults with cognitive impairment: Considerations for primary care clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To provide primary care physicians with an approach to medication optimization in older adults with cognitive impairment. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The approach is based on an accredited memory clinic training program developed by the Centre for Family Medicine Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinic. MAIN MESSAGE: Dementia increases the risk of medication-related adverse events and adds to the complexity and challenge of providing optimal care for these older adults. Considerations include medication adherence, appropriate therapeutic targets for comorbid conditions, minimized use of medications with potentially adverse cognitive effects, and rational use and monitoring of cognition-enhancing drugs. Medication management plans must be individualized and based on goals of care. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians must consider many factors in optimizing medications for those with cognitive impairment.

Antidepressant and antipsychotic prescribing in primary care for people with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To use data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) to evaluate the prevalence of antidepressant and antipsychotic prescriptions among patients with no previous depression or psychosis diagnoses, and to identify the factors associated with the use of these drugs in this population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data derived from CPCSSN. SETTING: Primary care practices associated with CPCSSN. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were born before 1949; who were associated with a CPCSSN primary care practitioner between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2013; and whose electronic medical records contained data from at least 6 months before and 12 months after the date of dementia diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescription for an antidepressant or antipsychotic medication in the absence of a depression or psychosis diagnosis. Multivariable models were fitted to determine estimated odds ratios (ORs) and were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Of the 3252 patients without a depression diagnosis, 8.5% received a new prescription for an antidepressant in the 12 months following their diagnosis of dementia. Prescribing was reduced in association with older age (OR of 0.86 per 5-year age increase, P=.001) and male sex (OR=0.77, P=.056), and prescribing increased in association with prescription of cholinesterase inhibitor medications (OR=1.57, P=.003). Of the 4262 patients without a diagnosis of psychosis, 6.1% received a new prescription for an antipsychotic in the 12 months following their diagnosis of dementia. Higher rates of antipsychotic prescriptions were reported in men (OR=1.31, P=.046), those receiving a prescription for steroids (OR=1.90, P=.037), and those diagnosed with Parkinson disease (OR 1.58, P=.051). CONCLUSION: A substantial number of patients with dementia are being prescribed antidepressant or antipsychotic medications by their primary care practitioners without evidence of depression or psychosis in their electronic medical records.

Update on the Risk of Motor Vehicle Collision or Driving Impairment with Dementia: A Collaborative International Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Guidelines that physicians use to assess fitness to drive for dementia are limited in their currency, applicability, and rigor of development. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to determine the risk of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) or driving impairment caused by dementia, in order to update international guidelines on driving with dementia. Seven literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, etc.) were searched for all research studies published after 2004 containing participants with mild, moderate, or severe dementia. From the retrieved 12,860 search results, we included nine studies in this analysis, involving 378 participants with dementia and 416 healthy controls. Two studies reported on self-/informant-reported MVC risk, one revealing a four-fold increase in MVCs per 1,000 miles driven per week in 3 years prior, and the other showing no statistically significant increase over the same time span. We found medium to large effects of dementia on driving abilities in six of the seven recent studies that examined driving impairment. We also found that persons with dementia were much more likely to fail a road test than healthy controls (RR: 10.77, 95% CI: 3.00-38.62, z = 3.65, p < 0.001), with no significant heterogeneity (χ2 = 1.50, p = 0.68, I2 = 0%) in a pooled analysis of four studies. Although the limited data regarding MVCs are equivocal, even mild stages of dementia place patients at a substantially higher risk of failing a performance-based road test and of demonstrating impaired driving abilities on the road.