Clinical judgement by primary care physicians for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia or cognitive impairment in symptomatic people

Clinical judgment of GPs for the diagnosis of dementia: a diagnostic test accuracy study

BACKGROUND

GPs often report using clinical judgment to diagnose dementia.

AIM

To investigate the accuracy of GPs' clinical judgment for the diagnosis of dementia.

DESIGN & SETTING

Diagnostic test accuracy study, recruiting from 21 practices around Bristol, UK.

METHOD

The clinical judgment of the treating GP (index test) was based on the information immediately available at their initial consultation with a person aged ≥70 years who had cognitive symptoms. The reference standard was an assessment by a specialist clinician, based on a standardised clinical examination and made according to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for dementia.

RESULTS

A total of 240 people were recruited, with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range [IQR] 75-84 years), of whom 126 (53%) were men and 132 (55%) had dementia. The median duration of symptoms was 24 months (IQR 12-36 months) and the median Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) score was 75 (IQR 65-87). GP clinical judgment had sensitivity 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47% to 65%) and specificity 89% (95% CI = 81% to 94%). Positive likelihood ratio was higher in people aged 70-79 years (6.5, 95% CI = 2.9 to 15) compared with people aged ≥80 years (3.6, 95% CI = 1.7 to 7.6), and in women (10.4, 95% CI = 3.4 to 31.7) compared with men (3.2, 95% CI = 1.7 to 6.2), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was similar in all groups.

CONCLUSION

A GP clinical judgment of dementia is specific, but confirmatory testing is needed to exclude dementia in symptomatic people whom GPs judge as not having dementia.

Psychometric Evaluation and Workflow Integration Study of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

With the rapid aging of the global population, experts anticipate a surge in the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia worldwide. It is argued that developing more sensitive, easy to administer, and valid MCI screening tools for use in primary care settings may initiate timely clinical and personal care planning and treatment, enabling early access to programs and services. Including functional competence measures in screening tests makes them more ecologically valid and may help to identify cognitive deficits at an earlier stage.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to conduct a preliminary evaluative study comparing the sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of the BrainFx Screen (referred to as SCREEN hereafter), a novel digital tool designed to assess functional competence and detect early signs of cognitive impairment, with the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment, a validated and highly sensitive tool that detects MCI in the older adult population. We will also investigate the perceived usefulness and integration of the SCREEN into primary care practice to identify demonstrable impacts on clinical workflow and health care providers' (HCP) perceptions of its success as a screening tool. Patients' perceptions of completing the SCREEN and its impact on their quality of life will also be explored.

METHODS

This study has a concurrent, mixed methods, prospective, and quasi-experimental design. Participants will be recruited from 5 primary care family health teams (FHTs; defined by multidisciplinary practice and capitated funding) across southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants will include HCPs, patients, care partners, and FHT administrative executives. Patients 55 years and older with no history of diagnoses for MCI, dementia, or Alzheimer disease rostered in one of the FHTs participating in the study will be eligible to participate. Their care partners will help triangulate the qualitative data collected from patients. Participating FHTs will identify an occupational therapist from their site to participate in the study; this HCP will both administer the research protocol and participate in semistructured in-depth interviews and questionnaires. Principal component analysis will be conducted on the SCREEN data to understand the test components better. Tests comparing sensitivity, specificity, and test-retest reliability will assess the validity of SCREEN as a screening tool for MCI.

RESULTS

This paper describes the study protocol and its activities to date. Data collection was halted early because of COVID-19 restrictions on research activity, and data analysis is currently in progress.

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the project, we anticipate having an initial comparative evaluation of the SCREEN as a tool for early detection of MCI in primary care older adult patient populations. Resource constraints on this research study limit our ability to conduct a randomized controlled trial; however, the results will assist developers of the SCREEN in determining whether rigorous controlled testing is warranted.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/25520.