Dataset Information

Improving the identification of people with dementia in primary care: evaluation of the impact of primary care dementia coding guidance on identified prevalence.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Improving dementia care is a policy priority nationally and internationally; there is a 'diagnosis gap' with less than half of the cases of dementia ever diagnosed. The English Health Department's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) encourages primary care recognition and recording of dementia. The codes for dementia are complex with the possibility of underidentification through miscoding. We developed guidance on coding of dementia; we report the impact of applying this to 'clean up' dementia coding and records at a practice level.

Design

The guidance had five elements: (1) identify Read Codes for dementia; (2) access QOF dementia register; (3) generate lists of patients who may have dementia; (4) compare search with QOF data and (5) review cases. In each practice, one general practitioner conducted the exercise. The number of dementia QOF registers before and after the exercise was recorded with the hours taken to complete the exercise.

Setting

London primary care.

Participants

23 (85%) of 27 practices participated, covering 79 312 (19 562 over 65 s) participants.

Outcomes

The number on dementia QOF registers; time taken.

Results

The number of people with dementia on QOF registers increased from 1007 to 1139 (?(2)=8.17, p=0.004), raising identification rates by 8.8%. It took 4.7 h per practice, on an average.

Conclusions

These data demonstrate the potential of a simple primary care coding exercise, requiring no specific training, to increase the dementia identification rate. An improvement of 8.8% between 2011 and 2012 is equivalent to that of the fourth most improved primary care trust in the UK. In absolute terms, if this effects were mirrored across the UK primary care, the number of cases with dementia identified would rise by over 70 000 from 364 329 to 434 488 raising the recognition rate from 46% to 54.8%. Implementing this exercise appears to be a simple and effective way to improve recognition rates in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Russell P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3884610 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany primary care sites have implemented models to improve detection, diagnosis, and management of dementia, as per Canadian guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the responses of clinicians, managers, and staff of sites that have implemented these models when presented with audit results, their insights on the factors that explain their results, their proposed solutions for improvement and how these align to one another.MethodsOne audit and feedback cycle was carried out in eight purposefully sampled sites in Ontario, Canada, that had previously implemented dementia care models. Audit consisted of a) chart review to assess quality of dementia care indicators, b) questionnaire to assess the physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice toward dementia care, and c) semi-structured interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing these models. Feedback was given to clinicians, managers, and staff in the form of graphic and oral presentations, followed by eight focus groups (one per site). Discussions revolved around: what audit results elicited more discussion from the participants, 2) their insights on the factors that explain their audit results, and 3) solutions they propose to improve dementia care. Deductive content and inductive thematic analyses, grounded in causal pathways models' theory was performed.FindingsThe audit and feedback process allowed the 63 participants to discuss many audit results and share their insights on a) organizational factors (lack of human resources, the importance of organized links with community services, clear roles and support from external memory clinics) and b) clinician factors (perceived competency practice and attitudes on dementia care), that could explain their audit results. Participants also provided solutions to improve dementia care in primary care (financial incentives, having clear pathways, adding tools to improve chart documentation, establish training on dementia care, and the possibility of benchmarking with other institutions). Proposed solutions were well aligned with their insights and further nuanced according to contextual details.ConclusionsThis study provides valuable information on solutions proposed by primary care clinicians, managers, and staff to improve dementia care in primary care. The solutions are grounded in clinical experience and will inform ongoing and future dementia strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with dementia (PwD) face unique challenges with medicines management, yet little is known about these challenges from the perspectives of primary healthcare professionals, particularly general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Few medicines management interventions have been developed which are aimed at community-dwelling PwD. This study sought to develop an intervention to improve medicines management for PwD in primary care using a theory-informed approach. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n =?15) and community pharmacists (n =?15) to explore participants' views and experiences of medicines management for PwD, and their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to successful medicines management for PwD. The 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework was the underpinning theoretical guide, allowing key theoretical domains to be identified and mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) which are considered the 'active ingredients' of an intervention. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs and were presented to GPs and community pharmacists during task groups. Final selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by feedback provided during these task groups and through application of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS:Participants expressed a number of concerns about medicines management for PwD, particularly monitoring adherence to medication regimens and conducting medication review. Two draft interventions comprising selected BCTs ('Modelling or demonstration of behaviour'; 'Salience of consequences'; 'Health consequences'; 'Social and environmental consequences'; 'Action planning'; Social support or encouragement', 'Self-monitoring of behaviour') were developed, each targeting GPs and community pharmacists. Following the task groups and discussions within the research team, the community pharmacy-based intervention was selected for future feasibility testing. The intervention will target community pharmacists to conduct a medication review (incorporating an adherence check) with a PwD, delivered as an online video demonstrating key behaviours. The video will include feedback emphasising positive outcomes of performing the behaviours. Action planning and a quick reference guide will be used as complementary intervention components. CONCLUSIONS:A community pharmacist-based intervention has been developed targeting medicines management for PwD in primary care using a systematic, theory-informed approach. Future work will determine the usability and acceptability of implementing this intervention in clinical practice.