RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have early evidence of efficacy. Widespread delivery of DMTs will require major service reconfiguration. Treatment pathways will need to include triaging for eligibility, regular infusions and baseline and follow-up MRI scanning. A critical step in planning is provision of real-world estimates of patients likely to be eligible for triaging, but these are challenging to obtain. METHODS: We performed a retrospective service evaluation of patients attending five memory services across North and East London and a national specialist cognitive disorders service. We examined the likely proportion of patients who would (1) be referred for triaging for DMTs and (2) potentially be suitable for treatments. RESULTS: Data from a total of 1017 patients were included, 517 of whom were seen in community memory services and 500 in a specialist clinic. In the memory services, 367/517 (71%) were diagnosed with possible AD. After exclusions of those in whom cognitive and frailty scores, MRI contraindications or anticoagulant use indicated they would be unlikely to be suitable, an estimated 32% would be eligible for triaging. In the specialist cognitive clinic, where additional investigations are available, 14% of those seen (70/500) would be potentially eligible for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While a sizeable proportion of patients attending memory clinics may be referred for triaging for DMTs for AD, only a minority are likely to be suitable for these, as demonstrated in patients seen in specialist cognitive services. This will need to be considered when designing pathways for DMT delivery.
Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Humanos , Doença de Alzheimer/tratamento farmacológico , Masculino , Idoso , Feminino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Definição da Elegibilidade , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Seleção de Pacientes , Londres , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) has high morbidity and mortality in older adults and people with dementia. Infection control and prevention measures potentially reduce transmission within hospitals. AIMS: We aimed to replicate our earlier study of London mental health in-patients to examine changes in clinical guidance and practice and associated COVID-19 prevalence and outcomes between COVID-19 waves 1 and 2 (1 March to 30 April 2020 and 14 December 2020 to 15 February 2021). METHOD: We collected the 2 month period prevalence of wave 2 of COVID-19 in older (≥65 years) in-patients and those with dementia, as well as patients' characteristics, management and outcomes, including vaccinations. We compared these results with those of our wave 1 study. RESULTS: Sites reported that routine testing and personal protective equipment were available, and routine patient isolation on admission occurred throughout wave 2. COVID-19 infection occurred in 91/358 (25%; 95% CI 21-30%) v. 131/344, (38%; 95% CI 33-43%) P < 0.001 in wave 1. Hospitals identified more asymptomatic carriers (26/91; 29% v. 16/130; 12%) and fewer deaths (12/91; 13% v. 19/131; 15%; odds ratio = 0.92; 0.37-1.81) compared with wave 1. The patient vaccination uptake rate was 49/58 (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in psychiatric in-patient settings, mostly admitted without known SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a high risk of infection compared with people in the community but lower than that during wave 1. Availability of infection control measures in line with a policy of parity of esteem between mental and physical health appears to have lowered within-hospital COVID-19 infections and deaths. Cautious management of vulnerable patient groups including mental health patients may reduce the future impact of COVID-19.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: People living in group situations or with dementia are more vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Older people and those with multimorbidity have higher mortality if they become infected than the general population. However, no systematic study exists of COVID-19-related outcomes in older inpatients in psychiatric units, who comprise people from these high-risk groups. We aimed to describe the period prevalence, demographics, symptoms (and asymptomatic cases), management, and survival outcomes of COVID-19 in the older inpatient psychiatric population and people with young-onset dementia in five National Health Service Trusts in London, UK, from March 1 to April 30, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we collected demographic data, mental health diagnoses, clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, symptoms, management, and COVID-19-related outcome data of inpatients aged 65 years or older or with dementia who were already inpatients or admitted as inpatients to five London mental health Trusts between March 1 and April 30, 2020, and information about available COVID-19-related resources (ie, testing and personal protective equipment). Patients were determined to have COVID-19 if they had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, or had relevant symptoms indicative of COVID-19, as determined by their treating physician. We calculated period prevalence of COVID-19 and analysed patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. FINDINGS: Of 344 inpatients, 131 (38%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period (period prevalence 38% [95% CI 33-43]). The mean age of patients who had COVID-19 was 75·3 years (SD 8·2); 68 (52%) were women and 47 (36%) from ethnic minority groups. 16 (12%) of 131 patients were asymptomatic and 121 (92%) had one or more disease-related comorbidity. 108 (82%) patients were compulsorily detained. 74 (56%) patients had dementia, of whom 13 (18%) had young-onset dementia. On average, sites received COVID-19 testing kits 4·5 days after the first clinical COVID-19 presentation. 19 (15%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 died during the study period, and their deaths were determined to be COVID-19 related. INTERPRETATION: Patients in psychiatric inpatient settings who were admitted without known SARS-CoV-2 infection had a high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those in the community and had a higher proportion of deaths from COVID-19 than in the community. Implementation of the long-standing policy of parity of esteem for mental health and planning for future COVID-19 waves in psychiatric hospitals is urgent. FUNDING: None.
Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Demência/epidemiologia , Demência/terapia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidade Hospitalar de Psiquiatria/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/fisiopatologia , Comorbidade , Demência/fisiopatologia , Feminino , Humanos , Londres/epidemiologia , Masculino , Prevalência , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Elder abuse is often unreported, undetected, and underestimated by professionals. For the first time, we report the effectiveness of an educational elder abuse intervention over three months and its impact on professionals' practice. METHODS: Forty trainee psychiatrists in two London National Health Service trusts completed the KAMA (Knowledge and Management of Elder Abuse) and CSQ (Caregiver Scenario Questionnaire) measuring knowledge about managing and detecting elder abuse, before and immediately after a brief group education session. We asked how often they considered, asked about, detected, and managed elder abuse and their confidence in doing so, at baseline and three months post-intervention. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, participants scored higher on the KAMA (paired t = 3.4, p = 0.002), and identified more definitely abusive (t = 3.0, p = 0.003) and possibly abusive (t = 2.1, p = 0.043) items immediately post-intervention. At three-month follow up, 24 (60%) participants reported higher confidence in managing abuse (Wilcoxon signed ranks test z = 3.7, p < 0.001) and considered it more frequently (z = 2.8, p = 0.006), but did not ask older people and their carers about abuse more frequently (z = 1.2, p = 0.24). Two (5%, 95% confidence interval 2%-17%) participants detected abuse in the three months before the intervention, compared with 2 (8%, 2%-26%) in the same period afterward. CONCLUSIONS: This brief educational intervention increased trainee psychiatrists' knowledge and vigilance for abuse immediately and after three months. They remained reluctant to ask about abuse for reasons including fear of causing offence or harming the therapeutic relationship and being unsure how to ask people with dementia. We postulate that changing doctors' behavior may require a more complex intervention, focusing on communication skills.