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

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Su Quin Ng ◽  
Stephanie Alison Ward

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 611-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Parker ◽  
Sally Barlow ◽  
Juanita Hoe ◽  
Leanne Aitken

ABSTRACTObjective:To identify barriers and facilitators to help seeking for a dementia diagnosis from the perspective of carers and people with dementia.Design:A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO protocol registration CRD42018092524). Nine electronic databases were searched for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods primary research studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, full texts of eligible studies, and conducted quality appraisal of included articles. A convergent qualitative synthesis approach was used.Results:From 7496 articles, 35 papers representing 32 studies from 1986 to 2017 were included. Studies originated from 13 countries across 4 continents. Barriers and facilitators were reported predominantly by carers. A small number of studies included people with dementia. Barriers included denial, stigma and fear, lack of knowledge, normalization of symptoms, preserving autonomy, lack of perceived need, unaware of changes, lack of informal network support, carer difficulties, and problems accessing help. Facilitators included recognition of symptoms as a problem, prior knowledge and contacts, and support from informal network.Conclusions:Studies from a 30-year period demonstrated that barriers to help seeking persist globally, despite increasing numbers of national dementia policies. Barriers and facilitators rarely existed independently demonstrating the complexity of help seeking for a diagnosis of dementia. Multiple barriers compounded the decision-making process and more than one facilitator was often required to overcome them. Multi-faceted interventions to reduce barriers are needed, one approach would be a focus on the development of dementia friendly communities to reduce stigma and empower people with dementia and carers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii17-iii65
Author(s):  
Barbara Giles ◽  
Lesya Gamorak ◽  
Arlene Adanza ◽  
Joy Gicale ◽  
Frances McCarthy

Abstract Background The management of non cognitive symptoms of dementia can be challenging for people living with dementia and their carers. The risks and limited benefit of antipsychotics in this setting is well documented however despite this they still are often prescribed. A previous study at our facility in 2016 highlighted a high prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing at 35% (Bambrick, et al. 2016). As a result of this, multidisciplinary psychotropic review meetings were established and are ongoing. Methods Two wards in our community nursing unit were selected. Inclusion criteria included residency > 6 months. The case notes, medication lists (admission and current prescriptions), and psychotropic review meeting notes were reviewed. Results 43 residents were included in the study. 72% (n=31) were female. The average age was 85 years. 74% (n= 32) of residents had a documented dementia diagnosis. On admission, 7 residents were taking regular antipsychotics. 5 of these medications were subsequently either reduced or discontinued. At the time of the study, 16% (n=7) were prescribed regular antipsychotics. There was a definite indication for 3 of these (schizoaffective disorder, psychosis, paranoid depression). 1 resident had a traumatic brain injury with associated distressing symptoms with harm incidents. 3 had a dementia diagnosis with associated distressing symptoms. A further 14% (n= 6) were prescribed antipsychotics on a PRN basis. 5 had a documented diagnosis of dementia with associated distressing symptoms. None of these residents received these medications in the 4 weeks prior to the study. Conclusion Significant improvements are noted since 2016 with the overall prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing decreasing from 35% to 16%, with the majority of these prescriptions having a clear indication. It is reassuring that residents are not receiving prn medications frequently. We await the national clinical guidance on “Appropriate Prescribing of Psychotropic Medication in People with Dementia” to further guide our practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 589-590
Author(s):  
Mauricio Molinari Ulate ◽  
Jem Bhatt ◽  
Jennifer Lynch ◽  
Katrina Scior ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
...  

Abstract Learning to live with a diagnosis of dementia is a complex process. Many people affected by dementia choose not to disclose the diagnosis to others and avoid social activities due to fear of others’ adverse reactions. This in turn can limit their social participation and negatively affect their psychosocial health. A systematic review explored factors influencing the decision to disclose or conceal a dementia diagnosis to one’s social network, including individuals’ attitudes and experiences regarding this decision. The sixteen studies included reveal the complexity of this decision. Findings highlight the role of stigma and individuals’ wishes to remain ‘normal’, but also the need of explaining what has changed. Results were further discussed with people with dementia and informal caregivers as part of patient and public involvement. End users expressed their attitudes, needs, and wishes towards the design of an online empowerment intervention supporting disclosure decision-making in people affected by dementia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 3803-3825
Author(s):  
Chorong Oh ◽  
Richard J. Morris ◽  
Xianhui Wang

Purpose This review was designed to provide a systematic overview of prosody in people with a primary diagnosis of dementia (PwD) and evaluate the potential use of prosodic features for diagnosis of dementia. Method A systematic search of five databases was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. Studies included in the review were evaluated for their methodological quality using the modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results A total of 14 articles were identified as being relevant for this review. Among the 14 articles, the methodological quality ranged, with eight rated as weak, four rated as moderate, and two rated as strong. Ten of the 14 articles had people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) as participants, and the remaining four had people with frontotemporal dementia as participants. Four articles focused on receptive prosody, another six focused on expressive prosody, and the remaining four articles were investigations into both. The 14 articles presented inconsistent findings, and various tasks were used to measure prosodic features in PwD in the articles. Prosody was studied as a diagnostic tool for dementia in four of the articles, all of which were based on expressive prosody in individuals with AD. Among the four articles, three proposed the use of automatic speech analysis for diagnosis of AD. Conclusions This review demonstrates that prosody in PwD is an underinvestigated area. In particular, it was concerning that most articles were of weak methodological quality. Nevertheless, it was found that prosody may be a potential diagnostic tool for assessing dementia. More studies that replicate the existing studies and those with stronger methodology are needed to confirm that receptive and/or expressive prosody can be used for dementia diagnosis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
M. Maćkowiak ◽  
M Ciułkowicz ◽  
M. Duda-Sikuła ◽  
D. Szcześniak ◽  
J. Rymaszewska

Background:The existing guidelines for the process of dementia diagnosis and treatment does not necessarily translate into optimal care and support for people with dementia. Such situation can have significant consequences. Misunderstanding of the new life situation as well as the negative perception of the diagnostic process itself are intensified by the limited options of post-diagnostic support. Especially in Poland, where the national dementia strategy has still not been implemented, experiences of people undergoing diagnosis and seeking support should be heard. By giving voice to people with dementia we can value their personal experiences, which due to the existing stigma, may often be overlooked and neglected.Objective:The aim of the study is to examine factors (conditions, barriers, facilitators) to receiving a dementia diagnosis and post-diagnostic support from the perspective of people with dementia living in Poland. The research was conducted as part of the JPND project COGNISANCE.Methods:Ten people with dementia diagnosed within last 24 months were interviewed with the use of selected projective techniques (word associations and third person expressive technique). An inductive qualitative content analysis approach has been implemented to analyse the obtained data.Results:Analysis revealed diverse categories encompassing broad spectrum of conditions, barriers and facilitators to receive a diagnosis and post-diagnostic support. People with dementia were prone to feeling positive emotions despite negative initial reactions during the diagnosis. Positive adaptation to the dementia were highly dependent on the empathetic attitude of the doctor and supportive family. Main needs were related to maintaining the independence, staying active, healthy and being socially connected. Interpersonal factors ensured sense of security and stability crucial for the well-being.Conclusions:Presented results provide important insight into the current experiences of people with dementia and represent guidelines for care providers and policy makers in introducing the optimal solutions in dementia support.


Author(s):  
Lars-Christer Hyden

As more people live longer, the number of persons with the diagnosis of dementia will increase; many will live a long time in their homes, and spend time at a care unit only during the final stage of the disease. It is essential to know more about how persons with dementia adapt to and learn to live with the disease in their everyday life so that they can sustain both relations and identities. One of the most important everyday venues for sharing experiences and negotiating identity is storytelling. When one family member or spouse gradually loses the ability to tell stories and cherish their common history due to Alzheimer’s disease, this may threaten both the experiences of belonging together and the participants’ individual identities. Learning about how persons with dementia can participate in storytelling is important in helping persons with dementia sustain their personhood. This book reviews previous research and introduces basic theoretical concepts as well as empirical findings that help in understanding how people with dementia can tell stories together with others. The book stresses the possibilities that are inherent in collaborative storytelling for sustaining both relations and identities. It also discusses how professionals and healthy relatives can learn to listen and make meaning in stories that otherwise might appear to be meaningless. Listening to and telling stories together with people living with a dementia diagnosis will help to re-imagine dementia—moving away from a notion of persons with dementia being “empty vessels” toward seeing them as collaborative meaning-makers.


2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1026-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Robinson ◽  
Alan Gemski ◽  
Clare Abley ◽  
John Bond ◽  
John Keady ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackground: Consensus recommends early recognition of memory problems through multi-disciplinary assessment in memory clinics; however, little is known about the experiences of people accessing such services. The aim of this review was to synthesis empirical evidence on patient and carer experiences in the transition to dementia.Methods: This review updates an earlier review (Bamford et al., 2004) on the topic of disclosure of the diagnosis of dementia. Key electronic databases were searched including OVID Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Sociological Abstracts; this was supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and contact with experts in the field. Only papers published after 2003 were included.Results: Of the 35 papers included in the review, only one study observed the process of disclosure and only two papers explored the effects on the person with dementia's health. The vast majority of people with dementia wished to know their diagnosis. The key challenges for the person with dementia were coming to terms with losses on multiple levels. Although there may be short-term distress, the majority of people with dementia do not appear to experience long-term negative effects on their psychological health. For family carers, becoming the main decision-maker and adjusting to increased responsibility were common concerns.Conclusions: There is still little empirical research observing the process of diagnostic disclosure in dementia. Studies exploring the views of patients and their families suggest this should be an ongoing process with the provision of support and information tailored to individual needs. The term “Alzheimer's disease” appears to have more negative connotations than the word “dementia”.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-95
Author(s):  
Hyun-Joo Lee ◽  
Young-Sun Lee ◽  
Ran Ju ◽  
Ki-Yeon Min
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 20200154
Author(s):  
Ann Wenzel ◽  
Louise Hauge Matzen ◽  
Rubens Spin-Neto ◽  
Lars Schropp

Objectives: To assess dental students’ ability to recognize head positioning errors in panoramic (PAN) images after individual learning via computer-assisted-learning (CAL) and in a simulation clinic (SIM). Both cognitive skills and performance in patient examination were assessed. Methods and materials: 60 students (mean age 23.25 years) participated in lectures on the relation between PAN-image errors and patient’s head position. Immediately after they took a test, based on which they were randomized to three groups: control (CON) group, CAL group, and SIM group (both CAL and training in a simulation clinic with a phantom). 4–5 weeks after intervention/no intervention, all students individually examined a patient with PAN-exposure. A blinded rater, not knowing group allocation, supervised patient exposure and assessed student’s performance (correct/incorrect head position in three planes). 1–2 weeks after, the students scored positioning errors in 40 PAN-images. Differences in cognitive test scores between groups were evaluated by ANOVA and in patient examination by χ2 tests, and within-group differences by sign-tests. Results: No statistically significant difference in cognitive test scores was seen between the SIM and CAL group, while the CON group scored lower (p < 0.003). In all groups, several students positioned the patient incorrectly in the Frankfort horizontal plane. All students performed well in the sagittal plane. Students in SIM group positioned the patient more correctly in the coronal plane. Conclusions: Training with CAL increased students’ cognitive skills compared with a control group. Simulated patient exposure with a phantom increased to some extent their performance skills in examination of patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document