Ciara McGlade

Attention! A good bedside test for delirium?

Background Routine delirium screening could improve delirium detection, but it remains unclear as to which screening tool is most suitable. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of the following screening methods (either individually or in combination) in the detection of delirium: MOTYB (months of the year backwards); SSF (Spatial Span Forwards); evidence of subjective or objective ‘confusion’. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of general hospital adult inpatients in a large tertiary referral hospital. Screening tests were performed by junior medical trainees. Subsequently, two independent formal delirium assessments were performed: first, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) followed by the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 (DRS-R98). DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) criteria were used to assign delirium diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for each screening method. Results 265 patients were included. The most precise screening method overall was achieved by simultaneously performing MOTYB and assessing for subjective/objective confusion (sensitivity 93.8%, 95% CI 82.8 to 98.6; specificity 84.7%, 95% CI 79.2 to 89.2). In older patients, MOTYB alone was most accurate, whereas in younger patients, a simultaneous combination of SSF (cut-off 4) with either MOTYB or assessment of subjective/objective confusion was best. In every case, addition of the CAM as a second-line screening step to improve specificity resulted in considerable loss in sensitivity. Conclusions Our results suggest that simple attention tests may be useful in delirium screening. MOTYB used alone was the most accurate screening test in older people.

Comparison of the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen and the SMMSE in screening for mild cognitive impairment.

Introduction: differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from normal cognition (NC) is difficult. The AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) 135, sensitive in differentiating MCI from dementia, was modified to improve sensitivity and specificity, producing the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen. Objective: this study compared the sensitivity and specificity of the Qmci with the Standardised MMSE and ABCS 135, to differentiate NC, MCI and dementia. Methods: weightings and subtests of the ABCS 135 were changed and a new section ‘logical memory’ added, creating the Qmci. From four memory clinics in Ontario, Canada, 335 subjects (154 with MCI, 181 with dementia) were recruited and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, attending with the subjects, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as controls (n = 630). Results: the Qmci was more sensitive than the SMMSE and ABCS 135, in differentiating MCI from NC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 compared with 0.67 and 0.83, respectively, and in differentiating MCI from mild dementia, AUC of 0.92 versus 0.91 and 0.91. The ability of the Qmci to identify MCI was better for those over 75 years. Conclusion: the Qmci is more sensitive than the SMMSE in differentiating MCI and NC, making it a useful test, for MCI in clinical practice, especially for older adults.

Advance care planning: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials conducted with older adults.

Advance care planning (ACP), involving discussions between patients, families and healthcare professionals on future healthcare decisions, in advance of anticipated impairment in decision-making capacity, improves satisfaction and end-of-life care while respecting patient autonomy. It usually results in the creation of a written advanced care directive (ACD). This systematic review examines the impact of ACP on several outcomes (including symptom management, quality of care and healthcare utilisation) in older adults (>65years) across all healthcare settings. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of the CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane databases. A total of 3646 older adults were included (range 72-88 years). Seven studies were conducted with community dwellers and the other two RCTs were conducted in nursing homes. Most studies did not implement a standardised ACD, or measure the impact on quality of end-of-life care or on the death and dying experience. All studies had some risk of bias, with most scoring poorly on the Oxford Quality Scale. While ACP interventions are well received by older adults and generally have positive effects on outcomes, this review highlights the need for well-designed RCTs that examine the economic impact of ACP and its effect on quality of care in nursing homes and other sectors.

Which part of the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci) discriminates between normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment and dementia?

Introduction: the Qmci is a sensitive and specific test to differentiate between normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the subtests of the Qmci to determine which best discriminated NC, MCI and dementia. Objective: the objective was to determine the contribution each subtest of the Qmci makes, to its sensitivity and specificity in differentiating MCI from NC and dementia, to refine and shorten the instrument. Methods: existing data from our previous study of 965 subjects, testing the Qmci, was analysed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the Qmci subtests. Results: all the subtests of the Qmci differentiated MCI from NC. Logical memory (LM) performed the best (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.80), registration the worst, (0.56). LM and verbal fluency had the largest median differences (expressed as percentage of total score) between MCI and NC, 20 and 25%, respectively. Other subtests did not have clinically useful differences. LM was best at differentiating MCI from NC, irrespective of age or educational status. Conclusion: the Qmci incorporates several important cognitive domains making it useful across the spectrum of cognitive impairment. LM is the best performing subtest for differentiating MCI from NC.

The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen correlated with the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive section in clinical trials

OBJECTIVES The Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive section and its standardized version (SADAS-cog) are the current standard for assessing cognitive outcomes in clinical trials of dementia. This study compares a shorter cognitive instrument, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, with the SADAS-cog as outcome measures in clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The SADAS-cog, Qmci, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, and the Lawton-Brady activities of daily living (ADL) scale were assessed at multiple time points, over 1 year in a multicenter randomized clinical trial of 406 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimers dementia. Correlations were estimated using regression at each time point, all time points, and mean values across time. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM). RESULTS Regression for pooled time points showed strong and significant correlation between the SADAS-cog and Qmci (r = -0.75, P < 0.001). Correlations remained strong for mean values across time and at each time point. The SADAS-cog and Qmci also correlated with CDR and ADL scores. There was no difference in SRMs between the SADAS-cog and Qmci [t(357) = -0.32, P = 0.75]. CONCLUSION The Qmci correlated strongly with the SADAS-cog and both were equally responsive to deterioration. We suggest that clinicians and investigators can substitute the shorter Qmci for the SADAS-cog.

Evaluating the systematic implementation of the ‘Let Me Decide’ advance care planning programme in long term care through focus groups: staff perspectives

BackgroundThe ‘Let Me Decide’ Advance Care Planning (LMD-ACP) programme offers a structured approach to End-of-Life (EoL) care planning in long-term care for residents with and without capacity to complete an advance care directive/plan. The programme was implemented in three homes in the South of Ireland, with a view to improving quality of care at end of life. This paper will present an evaluation of the systematic implementation of the LMD-ACP programme in the homes.MethodsFocus groups were conducted with 15 Clinical Nurse Managers and two Directors of Nursing where the programme had been implemented. A semi-structured topic guide was used to direct questions that addressed implementation process, challenges implementing advance care planning, advantages/disadvantages and recommendations for the future. Data was analysed using manifest content analysis.ResultsFive key categories emerged, with 16 corresponding subcategories. These subcategories emerged as a result of 37 codes. Key benefits of the programme included enhancing communication, changing the care culture, promoting preference-based care and avoiding crisis decision making. Establishing capacity among residents and indecision were among the main challenges reported by staff.DiscussionA number of recommendations were proposed by participants and included multi-disciplinary team involvement, and a blended approach to education on the topic. According to participants relationships with residents deepened, there was a more open and honest environment with family, end of life care focused more on symptom management, comfort and addressing spiritual care needs as opposed to crisis decision making and family conflict.ConclusionThe introduction of the LMD-ACP programme enhanced the delivery of care in the long-term care sites and led to a more open and positive care environment.

Interviews with Irish healthcare workers from different disciplines about palliative care for people with Parkinson’s disease: a definite role but uncertainty around terminology and timing

BackgroundAn integrated palliative care approach is recommended in all life-limiting diseases, including Parkinson’s disease (PD). However research shows that people with PD have unmet palliative care needs. The study aimed to explore multidisciplinary healthcare workers’ (HCWs) views on palliative care for people with PD, identifying perceived barriers and facilitators.MethodsA qualitative design was used; data was analysed using Thematic Analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 HCWs, working either with people with PD or in a palliative care setting in Ireland.ResultsA number of perceived barriers were evident helping to account for the previously reported unmet palliative care needs in PD. A lack of education about PD and palliative care meant that HCWs were unsure of the appropriateness of referral, and patients and carers weren’t equipped with information to seek palliative care. A lack of communication between PD and palliative care specialists was seen to impede collaboration between the disciplines. Uncertainty about the timing of palliative care meant that it was often not introduced until a crisis point, despite the recognised need for early planning due to increased prevalence of dementia.ConclusionsMost HCWs recognised a need for palliative care for people with PD; however several barriers to implementing a palliative care approach in this population need to be addressed. Implications for clinical practice and policy include the need for an integrated model of care, and education for all HCWs, patients, carers, and the public on both the nature of advanced PD, and the potential of palliative care in support of patients and their family members.

Challenges in implementing an advance care planning programme in long-term care:

Background: A high prevalence of cognitive impairment and frailty complicates the feasibility of advance care planning in the long-term-care population. Research aim: To identify challenges in implementing the ‘Let Me Decide’ advance care planning programme in long-term-care. Research design: This feasibility study had two phases: (1) staff education on advance care planning and (2) structured advance care planning by staff with residents and families. Participants and research context: long-term-care residents in two nursing homes and one community hospital. Ethical considerations: The local research ethics committee granted ethical approval. Findings: Following implementation, over 50% of all residents had completed some form of end-of-life care plan. Of the 70 residents who died in the post-implementation period, 14% had no care plan, 10% (with capacity) completed an advance care directive and lacking such capacity, 76% had an end-of-life care plan completed for them by the medical team, following discussions with the resident (if able) and family. The considerable logistical challenge of releasing staff for training triggered development of an e-learning programme to facilitate training. Discussion: The challenges encountered were largely concerned with preserving resident’s autonomy, avoiding harm and suboptimal or crisis decision-making, and ensuring residents were treated fairly through optimisation of finite resources. Conclusions: Although it may be too late for many long-term-care residents to complete their own advance care directive, the ‘Let Me Decide’ programme includes a feasible and acceptable option for structured end-of-life care planning for residents with variable capacity to complete an advance care directive, involving discussion with the resident (to the extent they were able) and their family. While end-of-life care planning was time-consuming to deliver, nursing staff were willing to overcome this and take ownership of the programme, once the benefits in improved communication and enhanced peace of mind among all parties involved became apparent in practice.

Palliative care for Parkinson’s disease: Patient and carer’s perspectives explored through qualitative interview

Background: Palliative care is recommended for non-malignant illnesses, including Parkinson’s disease. However, past research with healthcare workers highlights unmet palliative needs in this population and referral rates to Specialist Palliative Care are low. Some healthcare workers perceive a ‘fear’ in their patients about introducing palliative care. However, less is known about the views of people with Parkinson’s disease and their carers about palliative care. Aim: (1) To explore the palliative care and related issues most affecting people with Parkinson’s disease and their families and (2) to examine perceptions about/understanding of palliative care. Design: This was a qualitative study; semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Setting/participants: A total of 31 people participated, both people with Parkinson’s disease (n = 19) and carers (n = 12), across three Movement Disorder Clinics in the Republic of Ireland. Results: People with Parkinson’s disease and their carers were unfamiliar with the term palliative care. When informed of the role of palliative care, most felt that they would benefit from this input. People with Parkinson’s disease and carers experienced a high illness burden and wanted extra support. Crises requiring Specialist Palliative Care involvement may occur at diagnosis and later, with advancing illness. Participants wanted more information about palliative care and especially further supports to address their psychosocial needs. Conclusion: A holistic palliative care approach could address the complex physical and psychosocial symptoms experienced by people with Parkinson’s disease and their carers, and people with Parkinson’s disease and their carers are open to palliative care. Further research needs to explore how palliative care can be introduced into the routine care for people with Parkinson’s disease.

Survey of Health Care Workers Suggests Unmet Palliative Care Needs in Parkinson's Disease

The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and previous training of Irish health care workers (HCWs) in palliative care in end‐stage Parkinsons disease (PD). A survey was distributed to HCWs, including neurologists, geriatricians, general practitioners, nurses, and allied health professionals, in acute and community settings in the Republic of Ireland. Three‐hundred and six surveys were returned (32% average response rate). Most HCWs (90%) believed that people with PD have palliative care needs; however, 76% of HCWs also said that these needs are “never” or only “sometimes” met. These unmet needs are reflected in relatively few people with PD being referred to specialist palliative care; 48% of hospital consultants had referred no patients in the previous 6 months, and just 7% had referred more than 10. Just 8% of the HCWs surveyed reported having any training on the palliative care aspects of PD, and 97% expressed an interest in receiving further education. Respondents wanted all topics pertinent to palliative care in PD covered, and many felt that they also needed further information on PD in general. People with PD are seen to have palliative care needs; however, the findings suggest that these needs are not being met. There is a discrepancy between best practice recommendations for palliative care in PD and the beliefs and practices of HCWs. Further education in palliative care in PD is needed to ensure better quality of care for people with PD.