Concordance with clinical practice guidelines for dementia in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is said to be under-recognized and sub-optimally managed in primary care, but there is little information about actual processes of diagnosis and clinical care. AIM: To determine general practitioners' concordance with clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients with dementia. DESIGN: Unblinded, cluster randomized pre-test-post-test controlled trial involving 35 practices in the UK. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of probable or confirmed dementia were identified in practices, and permission sought from the older person and/or their carer to study the medical records of these patients. Medical records were reviewed using a data extraction tool designed for the study and based on published guidelines, and unweighted scores for diagnostic concordance and management concordance were calculated. RESULTS: We reviewed 450 records of patients aged 75 and over with a diagnosis of dementia and found that: only 4% of cases were identified first in secondary care; two-thirds of those identified in primary care were referred immediately; about one-third identified had informant history and blood tests documented at the Index consultation and one-fifth underwent cognitive function testing. DISCUSSION: The records analysed in this study came from a period before the Quality Outcomes Framework and show that the documentation in primary care of the diagnostic process in dementia syndromes is good, although there were significant gaps, particularly around depression case-finding. Information about management processes were less evident in the records.

Effectiveness of educational interventions in improving detection and management of dementia in primary care: cluster randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving detection rates and management of dementia in primary care. DESIGN: Unblinded, cluster randomised, before and after controlled study. SETTING: General practices in the United Kingdom (central Scotland and London) between 1999 and 2002. INTERVENTIONS: Three educational interventions: an electronic tutorial carried on a CD Rom; decision support software built into the electronic medical record; and practice based workshops. PARTICIPANTS: 36 practices participated in the study. Eight practices were randomly assigned to the electronic tutorial; eight to decision support software; 10 to practice based workshops; and 10 to control. Electronic and manual searches yielded 450 valid and usable medical records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of detection of dementia and the extent to which medical records showed evidence of improved concordance with guidelines regarding diagnosis and management. RESULTS: Decision support software (P = 0.01) and practice based workshops (P = 0.01) both significantly improved rates of detection compared with control. There were no significant differences by intervention in the measures of concordance with guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Decision support systems and practice based workshops are effective educational approaches in improving detection rates in dementia.

What constitutes health-related quality of life in dementia? Development of a conceptual framework for people with dementia and their carers.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of multi-dimensional outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQL) is particularly relevant in dementia where the disease can compromise all areas of functioning. The nature of dementia can make self-report difficult, yet the subjective nature of HRQL makes the value of proxy reports limited. Previous work suggests that there are domains of HRQL that are unique to dementia. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework of HRQL in dementia from the perspective of people with dementia and their carers and to examine differences in the reports of the HRQL of these two groups. METHODS: We combined existing literature and new qualitative data to develop the conceptual framework and analysed qualitative data using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified five domains: daily activities and looking after yourself, health and well-being, cognitive functioning, social relationships and self-concept, and each was defined by specific descriptive components. There were differences between people with dementia and carers in the way they described these domains. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a conceptual framework of HRQL in dementia that incorporates the views of people with dementia and their carers. This provides the basis for the development of a new measure of HRQL in dementia (DEMQOL).

Tearing down the Berlin wall: social workers' perspectives on joint working with general practice.

BACKGROUND: The arrangements for delivering social work and primary health care to older people in England and Wales are currently subject to rapid re-configuration, with the development of integrated primary care and social services trusts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate perceptions of joint working in social services and general practice. METHODS: The study setting was two London boroughs covered by one health authority, one NHS Community Health Services Trust, four Primary Care Groups and two social services departments. All social work team managers in both areas were interviewed together with a purposive sample of social workers with a high number of older clients on their caseloads. A sample of GPs was sought using a sampling frame of practice size in each borough. Structured interviews with open and closed questions were used. Tape-recorded interviews were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. Analysis of emergent themes was aided by the use of Atlas-ti. RESULTS: Social workers and GPs agree on the need for joint working, but have different understandings of it, each profession wanting the other to change its organizational culture. Co-location of social and health care is seen as desirable, but threatening to social work. Concerns about differences in power and hierarchical authority are evident and explicit in social work perspectives. Conflict resolution strategies include risk minimization, adopting pragmatic, case-specific solutions rather than remaining consistent with policy, using nurses as mediators, and resorting to authority. CONCLUSIONS: Although this is a study from urban areas in England, its findings may have wider significance since we have found that resources and professional skills may be more important than organizational arrangements in collaborative working between disciplines. Primary Care Trusts in England and Wales should promote awareness of these different perspectives, perceived risks and conflict minimization strategies in their work on clinical governance and professional development.

Integrating health and social care: implications for joint working and community care outcomes for older people.

In England, the theme of promoting collaborative working between social and primary health care remains high on the policy agenda. The underlying assumption, largely untested, is that a greater degree of structural integration benefits service users. This paper reports the findings from a feasibility study comparing two models of joint working and examining the relative impact of personal characteristics, service use and co-location on the likelihood of older people remaining in the community. Baseline standardised interviews with 79 older people aged 75 + with complex needs in two social services departments were carried out following referral, covering social circumstances, physical and mental health and services received, with follow-up interviews after six months. Contacts between social workers and primary care were tracked. The findings suggest that co-location does not necessarily lead to substantially closer interprofessional working in terms of greater contact between social workers and GPs or social workers and community nurses. Factors affecting outcome were degree of cognitive impairment, intensity of home care received and whether the older person lived alone. Whatever the model of collaborative working, its effects on remaining in the community must be assessed in the wider context of the characteristics and services received by older people.

General practitioners' knowledge, confidence and attitudes in the diagnosis and management of dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To measure general practitioners' knowledge of, confidence with and attitudes to the diagnosis and management of dementia in primary care. SETTING: 20 general practices of varying size and prior research experience in Central Scotland, and 16 similarly varied practices in north London. PARTICIPANTS: 127 general practitioners who had volunteered to join a randomised controlled trial of educational interventions about dementia diagnosis and management. METHODS: Self-completion questionnaires covering knowledge, confidence and attitudes were retrieved from practitioners prior to the educational interventions. RESULTS: General practitioners' knowledge of dementia diagnosis and management is good, but poor awareness of its epidemiology leads to an over-estimate of caseload. Knowledge of local diagnostic and support services is less good, and one third of general practitioners expressed limited confidence in their diagnostic skills, whilst two-thirds lacked confidence in management of behaviour and other problems in dementia. The main difficulties identified by general practitioners were talking with patients about the diagnosis, responding to behaviour problems and coordinating support services. General practitioners perceived lack of time and lack of social services support as the major obstacles to good quality care more often than they identified their own unfamiliarity with current management or with local resources. Attitudes to the disclosure of the diagnosis, and to the potential for improving the quality of life of patients and carers varied, but a third of general practitioners believed that dementia care is within a specialist's domain, not that of general practice. More experienced and male general practitioners were more pessimistic about dementia care, as were general practitioners with lower knowledge about dementia. Those reporting greater difficulty with dementia diagnosis and management and those with lower knowledge scores were also less likely to express attitudes endorsing open communication with patient and carer. CONCLUSION: Educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. The availability and profile of support services, particularly social care, need to be enhanced, if earlier diagnosis is to be pursued as a policy objective in primary care.

Social work, general practice and evidence-based policy in the collaborative care of older people: current problems and future possibilities.

While collaborative (or joint) working between social services and primary healthcare continues to rise up the policy agenda, current policy is not based on sound evidence of benefit to either patients or the wider community. Both sets of practitioners report benefits for their own work from adopting new arrangements for collaboration. The underlying assumption behind much of this activity is that a greater degree of integration provides benefits to both users and their carers, a perspective that at times obscures the issue of resource availability, especially in the form of practical community services such as district nursing and home help. At the present time there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that formal arrangements for collaborative working (CW) are better than those forged informally between committed individuals or teams. Furthermore, arrangements for CW have not hitherto been widely evaluated in systematic studies with a comparative design and focus on outcomes for users and carers rather than on processes. In this paper we propose a number of process measures for future evaluation of CW: (1) study populations must be comparable; (2) details of how services are actually delivered must be obtained and colocation should not be assumed to mean collaboration; (3) care packages in areas of comparable resources should be examined; (4) both destinational outcomes and user-defined evaluations of benefit should be considered; (5) possible disadvantages of integrated care also need to be actively considered; (6) evaluations should include an economic analysis. Those implementing new policies in Primary Care Trusts have, at present, little sound evidence to guide them in their innovative work. However, they should take the opportunity to rigorously test the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.