The recognition and management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in early Alzheimer's disease: a qualitative study among Dutch memory clinic physicians

Enhancing post-diagnostic care in Australian memory clinics: Health professionals' insights into current practices, barriers and facilitators, and desirable support

INTRODUCTION

Providing integrated and evidence-based support to individuals and families following a diagnosis of dementia is essential in order to optimise their quality of life and assist them to live well. Memory clinics provide multidisciplinary services specialising in the assessment and post-diagnostic treatment of people with dementia. This study sought to identify current practices, barriers and facilitators to provision of postdiagnostic support and to obtain health professionals' opinion of ideal post-diagnostic support to be offered in Australian memory clinics.

METHODOLOGY

This was a cross-sectional qualitative exploratory study. Data was collected from health professionals familiar with the process of diagnosis and post-diagnostic support through two expert panel meetings (n = 22). In addition, 5 focus groups (n = 22) were conducted including health professionals who are employed in Australian memory clinics. Data was collected between October 2020 and November 2021. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seven themes and three subthemes were identified under the three topics: Current Practices, Barriers and Facilitators, and Desirable Support. Themes relating to Current Practices were: Tailored Communication and feedback about diagnosis; Prescription of medications and follow-up; and Referrals to health and community services. Themes relating to Barriers and Facilitators were: The structure of the current system; Lack of funding; Lack of resources; Call for government investment. Themes relating to Desirable support were: A key/single point of support; Cognitive interventions; and Counselling and education.

CONCLUSION

Post-diagnostic support in Australian memory clinics focused primarily on ensuring people understood their diagnosis, information about postdiagnostic support was provided, and dementia medications were prescribed. There were notable differences in practices in metropolitan compared to regional areas. A key concern was the need for increased funding, particularly to support the establishment of a single point of contact to facilitate continuity of care.

Identifying and managing apathy in people with dementia living in nursing homes: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although apathy is common in people with dementia and has profound negative effects, it is rarely diagnosed nor specifically treated in nursing homes. The aim of this study is to explore experiences in identifying and managing apathy from the perspectives of people with dementia and apathy (PwA), family caregivers (FCs) and professional caregivers (PCs).

METHODS

Descriptive qualitative study with purposive sampling, comprising eleven semi-structured in-depth interviews with PwA, FCs or PCs and focus groups with twelve PCs in Dutch nursing homes. Seventeen additional in-depth interviews with caregivers were held, after signals of increasing apathy during the first Covid-19 lockdown. Using an inductive approach, data was analysed thematically to explore the experiences in identifying and managing apathy from the perspective of different stakeholders.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: 1) the challenge to appraise signals, 2) the perceived impact on well-being, 3) applied strategies to manage apathy. Although participants described apathy in line with diagnostic criteria, they were unfamiliar with the term apathy and had difficulties in appraising signals of apathy. Also, the perceived impact of apathy varied per stakeholder. PwA had difficulties reflecting on their internal state. FCs and PCs experienced apathy as challenging when it reduced the well-being of PwA or when they themselves experienced ambiguity, frustration, insecurity, disappointment or turning away. Dealing with apathy required applying specific strategies that included stimulating meaningful contact, adjusting one's expectations, and appreciating little successes.

CONCLUSIONS

When addressing apathy in nursing homes, it is important to consider that a) all stakeholders experience that appraising signals of apathy is challenging; b) apathy negatively influences the well-being of people with dementia and especially their FCs and PCs; and c) FCs and PCs can successfully, albeit temporarily, manage apathy by using specific strategies.

The reporting of neuropsychiatric symptoms in electronic health records of individuals with Alzheimer's disease: a natural language processing study

BACKGROUND

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are prevalent in the early clinical stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) according to proxy-based instruments. Little is known about which NPS clinicians report and whether their judgment aligns with proxy-based instruments. We used natural language processing (NLP) to classify NPS in electronic health records (EHRs) to estimate the reporting of NPS in symptomatic AD at the memory clinic according to clinicians. Next, we compared NPS as reported in EHRs and NPS reported by caregivers on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).

METHODS

Two academic memory clinic cohorts were used: the Amsterdam UMC (n = 3001) and the Erasmus MC (n = 646). Patients included in these cohorts had MCI, AD dementia, or mixed AD/VaD dementia. Ten trained clinicians annotated 13 types of NPS in a randomly selected training set of n = 500 EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC cohort and in a test set of n = 250 EHRs from the Erasmus MC cohort. For each NPS, a generalized linear classifier was trained and internally and externally validated. Prevalence estimates of NPS were adjusted for the imperfect sensitivity and specificity of each classifier. Intra-individual comparison of the NPS classified in EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI were conducted in a subsample (59%).

RESULTS

Internal validation performance of the classifiers was excellent (AUC range: 0.81-0.91), but external validation performance decreased (AUC range: 0.51-0.93). NPS were prevalent in EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC, especially apathy (adjusted prevalence = 69.4%), anxiety (adjusted prevalence = 53.7%), aberrant motor behavior (adjusted prevalence = 47.5%), irritability (adjusted prevalence = 42.6%), and depression (adjusted prevalence = 38.5%). The ranking of NPS was similar for EHRs from the Erasmus MC, although not all classifiers obtained valid prevalence estimates due to low specificity. In both cohorts, there was minimal agreement between NPS classified in the EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI (all kappa coefficients < 0.28), with substantially more reports of NPS in EHRs than on NPI assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

NLP classifiers performed well in detecting a wide range of NPS in EHRs of patients with symptomatic AD visiting the memory clinic and showed that clinicians frequently reported NPS in these EHRs. Clinicians generally reported more NPS in EHRs than caregivers reported on the NPI.

Effects of the DICE Method to Improve Timely Recognition and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Early Alzheimer's Disease at the Memory Clinic: The BEAT-IT Study

BACKGROUND

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are highly prevalent in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and are associated with negative outcomes. However, NPS are currently underrecognized at the memory clinic and non-pharmacological interventions are scarcely implemented.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Describe, Investigate, Create, Evaluate (DICE) method™ to improve the care for NPS in AD at the memory clinic.

METHODS

We enrolled sixty community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment or AD dementia and NPS across six Dutch memory clinics with their caregivers. The first wave underwent care as usual (n = 36) and the second wave underwent the DICE method (n = 24). Outcomes were quality of life (QoL), caregiver burden, NPS severity, NPS-related distress, competence managing NPS, and psychotropic drug use. Reliable change index was calculated to identify responders to the intervention. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed and semi-structured interviews with a subsample of the intervention group (n = 12).

RESULTS

The DICE method did not improve any outcomes over time compared to care as usual. Half of the participants of the intervention group (52%) were identified as responders and showed more NPS and NPS-related distress at baseline compared to non-responders. Interviews revealed substantial heterogeneity among participants regarding NPS-related distress, caregiver burden, and availability of social support. The intervention did not lead to significant gains in quality-adjusted life years and well-being years nor clear savings in health care and societal costs.

CONCLUSION

The DICE method showed no benefits at group-level, but individuals with high levels of NPS and NPS-related distress may benefit from this intervention.