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

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Su Quin Ng ◽  
Stephanie Alison Ward
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Dementia Diagnosis ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Care Assessment ◽  
New Models ◽  
Diagnosis Of Dementia ◽  
Memory Clinics

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.

scholarly journals Clinical practice guidelines and principles of care for people with dementia: a protocol for undertaking a Delphi technique to identify the recommendations relevant to primary care nurses in the delivery of person-centred dementia care

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e044843
Author(s):  
Caroline Gibson ◽  
Dianne Goeman ◽  
Mark William Yates ◽  
Dimity Pond
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Dementia Care ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Primary Care Nurse ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Primary Care Nurses

IntroductionNationally and internationally it is well recognised that dementia is poorly recognised and suboptimally managed in the primary care setting. There are multiple and complex reasons for this gap in care, including a lack of knowledge, high care demands and inadequate time for the general practitioner alone to manage dementia with its multiple physical, psychological and social dimensions. The primary care nurse potentially has a role in assisting the general practitioner in the provision of evidence-based dementia care. Although dementia-care guidelines for general practitioners exist, evidence on resources to support the primary care nurse in dementia care provision is scarce. The ‘Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines and Principles of Care for People with Dementia’ provides 109 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dementia. This protocol describes a Delphi study to identify which of the 109 recommendations contained in these multidisciplinary guidelines are relevant to the primary care nurse in the delivery of person-centred dementia care in the general practice setting.Methods and analysisUsing a Delphi consensus online survey, an expert panel will grade each of the recommendations written in the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines and Principles of Care for People with Dementia’ as high-to-low relevance with respect to the role of the primary care nurse in general practice. To optimise reliability of results, quality indicators will be used in the data collection and reporting of the study. Invited panel members will include Australian primary care nurses working in general practice, primary care nursing researchers and representatives of the Australian Primary Health Care Nurses Association, the peak professional body for nurses working in primary healthcare.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by The University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (H-2019-0029).Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

scholarly journals How do doctors deliver a diagnosis of dementia in memory clinics?

2018 ◽  
Vol 212 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jemima Dooley ◽  
Nick Bass ◽  
Rose McCabe
Keyword(s):  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Future Planning ◽  
Dementia Diagnosis ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
The Future ◽  
Diagnosis Of Dementia ◽  
Memory Clinics ◽  
Recorded Diagnosis

BackgroundDementia diagnosis rates are increasing. Guidelines recommend that people with dementia should be told their diagnosis clearly and honestly to facilitate future planning.AimsTo analyse how doctors deliver a dementia diagnosis in practice.MethodConversation analysis was conducted on 81 video-recorded diagnosis feedback meetings with 20 doctors from nine UK memory clinics.ResultsAll doctors named dementia; 59% (n = 48) approached the diagnosis indirectly but delicately (‘this is dementia’) and 41% (n = 33) approached this directly but bluntly (‘you have Alzheimer's disease’). Direct approaches were used more often with people with lower cognitive test scores. Doctors emphasised that the dementia was mild and tended to downplay its progression, with some avoiding discussing prognosis altogether.ConclusionsDoctors are naming dementia to patients. Direct approaches reflect attempts to ensure clear diagnosis. Downplaying and avoiding prognosis demonstrates concerns about preserving hope but may compromise understanding about and planning for the future.Declaration of interestNone.

Clinical practice guidelines and organizational adaptation: A framework for analyzing economic effects

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Schneider ◽  
N. Andrew Peterson ◽  
Thomas E. Vaughn ◽  
Eric N. Mooss ◽  
Bradley N. Doebbeling
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Organizational Factors ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Organizational Adaptation ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Total Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The overall objective of this article was to review the theoretical and conceptual dimensions of how the implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is likely to affect treatment costs.Methods:An important limitation of the extant literature on the cost effects of CPGs is that the main focus has been on clinical adaptation. We submit that the process innovation aspects of CPGs require changes in both clinical and organizational dimensions. We identify five organizational factors that are likely to affect the relationship between CPGs and total treatment costs: implementation, coordination, learning, human resources, and information. We review the literature supporting each of these factors.Results:The net organizational effects of CPGs on costs depends on whether the cost-reducing properties of coordination, learning, and human resource management offset potential cost increases due to implementation and information management.Conclusions:Studies of the cost effects of clinical practice guidelines should attempt to measure, to the extent possible, the effects of each of these clinical and organizational factors.

High Flow Oxygen Therapy and the Pressure to Feed Infants With Acute Respiratory Illness

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1006-1010
Author(s):  
Jennifer Raminick ◽  
Hema Desai
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Acute Respiratory Illness ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

Purpose Infants hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness often require the use of noninvasive respiratory support during the initial stage to improve their breathing. High flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) is becoming a more popular means of noninvasive respiratory support, often used to treat respiratory syncytial virus/bronchiolitis. These infants present with tachypnea and coughing, resulting in difficulties in coordinating sucking and swallowing. However, they are often allowed to feed orally despite having high respiratory rate, increased work of breathing and on HFOT, placing them at risk for aspiration. Feeding therapists who work with these infants have raised concerns that HFOT creates an additional risk factor for swallowing dysfunction, especially with infants who have compromised airways or other comorbidities. There is emerging literature concluding changes in pharyngeal pressures with HFOT, as well as aspiration in preterm neonates who are on nasal continuous positive airway pressure. However, there is no existing research exploring the effect of HFOT on swallowing in infants with acute respiratory illness. This discussion will present findings from literature on HFOT, oral feeding in the acutely ill infant population, and present clinical practice guidelines for safe feeding during critical care admission for acute respiratory illness. Conclusion Guidelines for safety of oral feeds for infants with acute respiratory illness on HFOT do not exist. However, providers and parents continue to want to provide oral feeds despite clinical signs of respiratory distress and coughing. To address this challenge, we initiated a process change to use clinical bedside evaluation and a “cross-systems approach” to provide recommendations for safer oral feeds while on HFOT as the infant is recovering from illness. Use of standardized feeding evaluation and protocol have improved consistency of practice within our department. However, further research is still necessary to develop clinical practice guidelines for safe oral feeding for infants on HFOT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document