Effectiveness of dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine the effectiveness of post-diagnosis dementia treatment and coordination of care by memory clinics compared with general practitioners.Design
Multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting
Nine memory clinics and 159 general practitioners in the Netherlands.Participants
175 patients with a new diagnosis of mild to moderate dementia living in the community and their informal caregivers.Interventions
Usual care provided by memory clinic or general practitioner.Main outcome measures
Caregiver rated quality of life of the patient measured with the quality of life in Alzheimer's disease instrument and self perceived burden of the informal caregiver measured with the sense of competence questionnaire (intention to treat analysis).Results
The quality of life of the patients in the memory clinic group was 0.5 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 1.6) points higher than in the general practitioner group. Caregivers' burden was 2.4 (-5.8 to 1.0) points lower in the memory clinic group than in the general practitioner group.Conclusion
No evidence was found that memory clinics were more effective than general practitioners with regard to post-diagnosis treatment and coordination care for patients with dementia. Without further evidence on the effectiveness of these modalities, other arguments, such as cost minimisation, patients' preferences, or regional health service planning, can determine which type of dementia care is offered.Trial registration
Clinical trials NCT00554047.
SUBMITTER: Meeuwsen EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3352696 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of post-diagnosis dementia treatment and coordination of care by memory clinics compared to general practitioners' care.MethodsA multicentre randomised trial with 175 community dwelling patients newly diagnosed with mild to moderate dementia, and their informal caregivers, with twelve months' follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal point of view and presented as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year. To establish cost-effectiveness, a cost-utility analysis was conducted using utilities based on the EQ-5D. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (difference in costs divided by difference in effects) was calculated by bootstrapping from the original data.ResultsCompared to general practitioners' care, treatment by the memory clinics was on average €1024 (95% CI: -€7723 to €5674) cheaper, and showed a non-significant decrease of 0.025 (95% CI: -0.114 to 0.064) quality adjusted life years. The incremental cost-effectiveness point estimate from the bootstrap simulation was € 41 442 per QALY lost if one would use memory clinic care instead of general practitioner care.ConclusionNo evidence was found that memory clinics were more cost-effective compared to general practitioners with regard to post-diagnosis treatment and coordination of care of patients with dementia in the first year after diagnosis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00554047.
| S-EPMC3839971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:General Practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the follow-up of patients after deliberate self-poisoning (DSP). The aim was to examine whether structured follow-up by GPs increased the content of, adherence to, and satisfaction with treatment after discharge from emergency departments.This was a multicentre, randomised trial with blinded assignment. Five emergency departments and general practices in the catchment area participated. 202 patients discharged from emergency departments after DSP were assigned. The intervention was structured follow-up by the GP over a 6-month period with a minimum of five consultations, accompanied by written guidelines for the GPs with suggestions for motivating patients to follow treatment, assessing personal problems and suicidal ideation, and availability in the case of suicidal crisis. Outcome measures were data retrieved from the Register for the control and payment of reimbursements to health service providers (KUHR) and by questionnaires mailed to patients and GPs. After 3 and 6 months, the frequency and content of GP contact, and adherence to GP consultations and treatment in general were registered. Satisfaction with general treatment received and with the GP was measured by the EUROPEP scale.Patients in the intervention group received significantly more consultations than the control group (mean 6.7 vs. 4.5 (p = 0.004)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the time their GP took to listen to their personal problems (93.1% vs. 59.4% (p = 0.002)) and with the fact that the GP included them in medical decisions (87.5% vs. 54. 8% (p = 0.009)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the treatment in general than the control group (79% vs. 51% (p = 0.026)).Guidelines and structured, enhanced follow-up by the GP after the discharge of the DSP patient increased the number of consultations and satisfaction with aftercare in general practice. Consistently with previous research, there is still a need for interventional studies.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342809. Registered 18 April 2011.
| S-EPMC4604741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess whether systematic follow-up by general practitioners (GPs) of cases of deliberate self-poisoning (DSP) by their patients decreases psychiatric symptoms and suicidal behaviour compared with current practice.Randomised clinical trial with two parallel groups.General practices in Oslo and the eastern part of Akershus County.Patients aged 18-75 years admitted to hospital for DSP. We excluded patients diagnosed with psychoses, without a known GP, those not able to complete a questionnaire, and patients admitted to psychiatric in-patient care or other institutions where their GP could not follow them immediately after discharge.The GPs received a written guideline, contacted the patients and scheduled a consultation within one week after discharge, and then provided regular consultations for six months. We randomised the patients to either intervention (n = 78) or treatment as usual (n = 98).Primary outcome measure was the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI). Secondary outcomes were Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), self-reported further self-harm and treatment for DSP in a general hospital or an emergency medical agency (EMA). We assessed patients on entry to the trial and at three and six months. We collected data from interviews, self-report questionnaires, and hospital and EMA medical records.There were no significant differences between the groups in SSI, BDI, or BHS mean scores or change from baseline to three or six months. During follow-up, self-reported DSP was 39.5% in the intervention group vs. 15.8% in controls (P = 0.009). Readmissions to general hospitals were similar (13% in both groups (P = 0.963), while DSP episodes treated at EMAs were 17% in the intervention group and 7% in the control group (P = 0.103).Structured follow-up by GPs after an episode of DSP had no significant effect on suicide ideation, depression or hopelessness. There was no significant difference in repeated episodes of DSP in hospitals or EMAs. However, the total number of incidents of deliberate self-harm reported by the patients was significantly higher in the intervention group.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342809.
| S-EPMC4667913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFacilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.ResultsThirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.ConclusionPatients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.Patient or public contributionPatients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.
| S-EPMC10632636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advance care planning (ACP) facilitates communication and understanding of preferences, nevertheless the use of ACPs in primary care is low. The uncertain course of dementia and the inability to communicate with the patient living with dementia are significant challenges for GPs to initiate discussions on goals of care.A cross-sectional survey, using a purposive, cluster sample of GPs across Northern Ireland with registered dementia patients was used. GPs at selected practices received the survey instrument and up to four mail contacts was implemented.One hundred and thirty-three GPs (40.6%) participated in the survey, representing 60.9% of surveyed practices. While most respondents regarded dementia as a terminal disease (96.2%) only 37.6% felt that palliative care applied equally from the time of diagnosis to severe dementia. While most respondents thought that early discussions would facilitate decision-making during advanced dementia (61%), respondents were divided on whether ACP should be initiated at the time of diagnoses. While most respondents felt that GPs should take the initiative to introduce and encourage ACP, most survey participants acknowledged the need for improved knowledge to involve families in caring for patients with dementia at the end of life and that a standard format for ACP documentation was needed.Optimal timing of ACP discussions should be determined by the readiness of the patient and family carer to face end of life. ACP discussions can be enhanced by educational strategies directed towards the patient and family carer that enable shared decision-making with their GP when considering options in future care.
| S-EPMC4410576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.MethodsThe study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.Findings150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.InterpretationSC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.FundingVictorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.
| S-EPMC10716007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the importance of the continuous follow-up of chronic patients, we evaluated the performance of French private practice general practitioners (GPs) practicing in multi-professional group practices (MGP) regarding chronic care management during the first Covid-19 lockdown in Spring 2020 compared to GPs not in MGP. We consider two outcomes: continuity of care provision for chronic patients and proactivity in contacting these patients.MethodsThe cross-sectional web questionnaire of 1191 GPs took place in April 2020. We exploit self-reported data on: 1) the frequency of consultations for chronic patients during lockdown compared to their "typical" week before the pandemic, along with 2) GPs' proactive behaviour when contacting their chronic patients. We use probit and bivariate probit models (adjusted for endogeneity of choice of engagement in MGP) to test whether GPs in MGP had significantly different responses to the Covid-19 crisis compared to those practicing outside MGP.ResultsOut of 1191 participants (response rate: 43.1%), around 40% of GPs were female and 34% were younger than 50 years old. Regression results indicate that GPs in MGP were less likely to experience a drop in consultations related to complications of chronic diseases (- 45.3%). They were also more proactive (+ 13.4%) in contacting their chronic patients compared to their peers practicing outside MGP.ConclusionWe demonstrate that the MGP organisational formula was beneficial to the follow-up of patients with chronic conditions during the lockdown; therefore, it appears beneficial to expand integrated practices, since they perform better when facing a major shock. Further research is needed to confirm the efficiency of these integrated practices outside the particular pandemic setup.
| S-EPMC9016683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsCreation of an algorithm that includes the most important parameters (history, clinical parameters, and anamnesis) that can be linked to heart failure, helping general practitioners in recognizing heart failure in an early stage and in a better follow-up of the patients.Methods and resultsThe algorithm was created using a consensus-based Delphi panel technique with fifteen general practitioners and seven cardiologists from Belgium. The method comprises three iterations with general statements on diagnosis, referral and treatment, and follow-up. Consensus was obtained for the majority of statements related to diagnosis, referral, and follow-up, whereas a lack of consensus was seen for treatment statements. Based on the statements with good and perfect consensus, an algorithm for general practitioners was assembled, helping them in diagnoses and follow-up of heart failure patients. The diagnosis should be based on three essential pillars, i.e. medical history, anamnesis and clinical examination. In case of suspected heart failure, blood analysis, including the measurement of NT-proBNP levels, can already be performed by the general practitioner followed by referral to the cardiologist who is then responsible for proper diagnosis and initiation of treatment. Afterwards, a multidisciplinary health care process between the cardiologist and the general practitioner is crucial with an important role for the general practitioner who has a key role in the up-titration of heart failure medication, down-titration of the dose of diuretics and to assure drug compliance.ConclusionsBased on the consensus levels of statements in a Delphi panel setting, an algorithm is created to help general practitioners in the diagnosis and follow-up of heart failure patients.
| S-EPMC7775077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly diagnosis of dementia benefits both patient and caregiver. Nevertheless, dementia in primary care is currently under-diagnosed. Some educational interventions developed to improve dementia diagnosis and management were successful in increasing the number of dementia diagnoses and in changing attitudes and knowledge of health care staff. However, none of these interventions focussed on collaboration between GPs and nurses in dementia care. We developed an EASYcare-based Dementia Training Program (DTP) aimed at stimulating collaboration in dementia primary care. We expect this program to increase the number of cognitive assessments and dementia diagnoses and to improve attitudes and knowledge of GPs and nurses.MethodsThe DTP is a complex educational intervention that consists of two workshops, a coaching program, access to an internet forum, and a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System on dementia diagnostics. One hundred duos of GPs and nurses will be recruited, from which 2/3 will be allocated to the intervention group and 1/3 to the control group. The effects of implementation of the DTP will be studied in a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary outcomes will be the number of cognitive assessments and dementia diagnoses in a period of 9 months following workshop participation. Secondary outcomes are measured on GP and nurse level: adherence to national guidelines for dementia, attitude, confidence and knowledge regarding dementia diagnosis and management; on patient level: number of emergency calls, visits and consultations and patient satisfaction; and on caregiver level: informal caregiver burden and satisfaction. Data will be collected from GPs' electronic medical records, self-registration forms and questionnaires. Statistical analysis will be performed using the MANOVA-method. Also, exploratory analyses will be performed, in order to gain insight into barriers and facilitators for implementation and the possible causal relations between the rate of success of the intervention components and the outcomes.DiscussionWe developed multifaceted dementia training programme. Novelties in this programme are the training in fixed collaborative duos and the inclusion of an individual coaching program. The intervention is designed according to international guidelines and educational standards. Exploratory analysis will reveal its successful elements. Selection bias and contamination may be threats to the reliability of future results of this trial. Nevertheless, the results of this trial may provide useful information for policy makers and developers of continuing medical education.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00459784.
| S-EPMC2391160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:General practitioner (GP) treatment of dementia is often criticized as being ineffective and not implemented consistently enough. The causes and specific standpoints of GPs have not previously been thoroughly investigated. This paper focuses on the reasons and the criticisms levelled at GPs with regard to diagnosing dementia, and identifies approaches to enable optimization. The analysis is based on 41 semi-structured interviews with GPs in Hesse, Germany, in 2018. During the course of a content analysis, the interviewees' attitudes and behavioral patterns towards dementia diagnostics were to be analyzed. The results of the study show various challenges and problems of primary care in this field. The majority of the sample showed skepticism and reluctance with regard to the diagnosis of dementia. Six key problem areas were extracted from the interviews, which can be seen as root causes for the distance kept by GPs: 1) early delegation of patients due to role understanding, 2) attitude of pessimism towards dementia, 3) differential diagnosis perceived as an obstacle, 4) insufficient remuneration, 5) fear of patient stigmatization, and 6) lack of application. Some GPs demonstrated personal initiative with the aim of optimizing dementia diagnostics. Three approaches can be derived which could be used to improve the GP-based care of dementia: 1) self-efficacy, 2) differential diagnostics and treatment pathways, and 3) physician-patient communication.
| S-EPMC7272384 | biostudies-literature