Improving professional practice in the disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: a modeling experiment to evaluate a theory-based intervention.

BACKGROUND: Among health professionals, there is wide variation in the practice of disclosing a diagnosis of dementia to patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of one theory-based and two pragmatic interventions on intention to perform three behaviors, namely (1) finding out what the patient already knows or suspects about their diagnosis; (2) using the actual words "dementia" or "Alzheimer's disease" when talking to the patient (i.e., the use of explicit terminology); (3) exploring what the diagnosis means to the patient. METHOD: Within an intervention-modeling process, members of old-age mental health teams in England were sent postal questionnaires measuring psychological variables. Respondents were randomized by team to one of four groups to receive: theory-based intervention; evidence-based communication; patient-based intervention; or no intervention (control). Interventions were delivered as pen-and-paper exercises at the start of a second postal questionnaire that remeasured the same psychological variables. The outcome measures were intention and scenario-based behavioral simulation. RESULTS: Responses were received from 644 of 1,103 (58%) individuals from 179 of 205 (87%) mental health teams. There were no significant differences in terms of intention or simulated behavior between the trial groups. The theory-based intervention significantly increased scores for attitudes to (p = 0.03) and perceived behavioral control (p = 0.001) for the behavior of "finding out what the patient already knows or suspects about their diagnosis." CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had a limited effect. This may be partly explained by clinical or methodological factors. The use of a systematic intervention modeling process allows clearer understanding of the next appropriate steps which should involve further evaluation of the interventions using an interactive delivery method in a less selected group of study participants.

Is untargeted educational outreach visiting delivered by pharmaceutical advisers effective in primary care? A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that clinical guidelines can lead to improvements in clinical care. However, they are not self-implementing. While educational outreach visits may improve prescribing behaviour, the effectiveness of routine delivery of these visits by existing pharmaceutical advisers is unknown. METHODS: Within a pragmatic randomized controlled trial, involving all general practices in two primary care trusts (PCTs), routine methods were used to distribute guidelines for the choice of antidepressants for the management of depression. Intervention practices were offered two visits (most accepted only one) by their PCT pharmaceutical adviser who had been trained in the techniques of outreach visiting. Intervention practices were visited regardless of whether they had prior problems with prescribing ('untargeted' visits). The intervention was evaluated using level three prescribing analysis and cost (PACT) data for antidepressant drugs for the six months during which the intervention was delivered and the subsequent twelve months. RESULTS: Across the 72 study practices there was no significant impact of the intervention on usage of any group of antidepressant drugs. CONCLUSION: The routine use of untargeted educational outreach visiting delivered by existing pharmaceutical advisers may not be a worthwhile strategy.

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a Diabetes REcall And Management system: the DREAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of a computerised diabetes register in part of the northeast of England, care initially improved but then plateaued. We therefore enhanced the existing diabetes register to address these problems. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended,' computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and management system, including individualised patient management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted, evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: The study design was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with the general practice as the unit of randomisation. Set in 58 general practices in three Primary Care Trusts in the northeast of England, the study outcomes were the clinical process and outcome variables held on the diabetes register, patient-reported outcomes, and service and patient costs. The effect of the intervention was estimated using generalised linear models with an appropriate error structure. To allow for the clustering of patients within practices, population averaged models were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Patients in intervention practices were more likely to have at least one diabetes appointment recorded (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02, 3.91), to have a recording of a foot check (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09, 3.21), have a recording of receiving dietary advice (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22, 6.29), and have a recording of blood pressure (BP) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06, 4.36). There was no difference in mean HbA1c or BP levels, but the mean cholesterol level in patients from intervention practices was significantly lower (-0.15 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25, -0.06). There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes or in patient-reported use of drugs, or uptake of health services. The average cost per patient was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Costs incurred in administering the system at the register and in general practice were in addition to these. CONCLUSION: This study has shown benefits from an area-wide, computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and individualised patient management system. However, these benefits were achieved at a cost. In future, these costs may fall as electronic data exchange becomes a reliable reality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN32042030.

A trial platform to develop a tailored theory-based intervention to improve professional practice in the disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: study protocol [ISRCTN15871014].

BACKGROUND: For people with dementia, care should include an explanation of the diagnosis to individuals and their carers, and information about the likely prognosis and possible packages of care. However, this is neither routine nor inevitable, and there is wide variation in the practice of disclosure. The aim of this study is to develop a tailored theory-based intervention to promote appropriate disclosure of diagnosis of dementia. METHODS: There are three objectives. Objective 1 is to define and develop an appropriate model of disclosure; this will be addressed using a multidisciplinary consensus development process. Objective 2 is to identify factors that influence disclosure of diagnosis; a questionnaire based upon theoretical constructs from a range of behavioural theories will be developed and members of old age mental health teams will be surveyed. The analysis will identify those factors that best predict intention to disclose a diagnosis to a person with dementia. Objective 3 is to develop and pilot test a theory-based intervention to promote disclosure of diagnosis that targets attitudes, beliefs and actions most amenable to change. Objective 3 will use the results of Objectives 1&2 to design and pilot test an intervention to improve the process of and increase the proportion of individuals receiving a diagnosis of dementia, for members of old age mental health teams. This work will lead to a proposal for a randomised controlled trial of the intervention.