Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 3;9(6):e026927. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026927.
Between 2012 and 2017 dementia case finding was routinely carried out on people aged 75 years and over with unplanned admissions to acute hospitals across England. The assumption was that this would lead to better planning of care and treatment for patients with dementia following discharge from hospital. However, little is known about the experiences of patients and carers or the impacts on other health services. This study explored the impact of dementia case finding on older people and their families and on their use of services.
Thematic content analysis was conducted on qualitative interview data and costs associated with service use were estimated. Measures included the Mini-Mental State Examination, the EuroQol quality of life scale and a modified Client Service Receipt Inventory.
Four counties in the East of England.
People aged ≥75 years who had been identified by case finding during an unplanned hospital admission as warranting further investigation of possible dementia and their family carers.
We carried out 28 interviews, including 19 joint patient-carer(s), 5 patient only and 4 family carer interviews. Most patients and carers were unaware that memory assessments had taken place, with many families not being informed or involved in the process. Participants had a variety of views on memory testing in hospital and had concerns about how hospitals carried out assessments and communicated results. Overall, case finding did not lead to general practitioner (GP) follow-up after discharge home or lead to referral for further investigation. Few services were initiated because of dementia case finding in hospital.
This study shows that dementia case finding may not lead to increased GP follow-up or service provision for patients after discharge from hospital. There is a need for a more evidence-based approach to the initiation of mandatory initiatives such as case finding that inevitably consume stretched human and financial resources.
2012 年至 2017 年期间,在英国各地的急性医院中,对 75 岁及以上的非计划性入院患者进行常规痴呆症发现。假设这将有助于更好地规划患者在出院后的护理和治疗。然而,人们对患者和护理者的体验或对其他卫生服务的影响知之甚少。本研究探讨了痴呆症发现对老年人及其家庭的影响,以及对服务使用的影响。
对定性访谈数据进行主题内容分析,并估计与服务使用相关的成本。措施包括简易精神状态检查、欧洲五维健康量表和改良的客户服务收据清单。
英格兰东部的四个县。
通过非计划性住院期间的病例发现被确定为需要进一步调查可能的痴呆症的 75 岁及以上的患者及其家庭护理者。
我们进行了 28 次访谈,包括 19 次联合患者-护理者、5 次患者和 4 次家庭护理者访谈。大多数患者和护理者不知道记忆评估已经进行,许多家庭没有被告知或参与该过程。参与者对医院进行的记忆测试有各种看法,并对医院如何进行评估和沟通结果表示担忧。总体而言,病例发现并未导致患者出院后家庭医生(GP)随访或导致进一步调查的转诊。由于医院的痴呆病例发现,很少有服务开始。
本研究表明,痴呆病例发现可能不会导致患者出院后 GP 随访或服务提供增加。需要对诸如病例发现等强制性举措的启动采取更基于证据的方法,这些举措不可避免地会消耗紧张的人力和财力资源。