Perspectives on disclosure of the dementia diagnosis among primary care physicians in Japan: a qualitatively driven mixed methods study

Good Death and Quality of End-of-Life Care in Patients with Coexisting Cancer and Dementia: Perspective of Bereaved Families

Background

Patients with coexisting cancer and dementia often have complex health care needs and face challenges in achieving a good death.

Objectives

To evaluate good death achievement and end-of-life (EOL) care in patients with coexisting cancer and dementia from the perspective of bereaved families.

Design

Cross-sectional nationwide postal survey.

Setting/Subjects

Bereaved families of patients with cancer who died in hospice and palliative care units across Japan.

Measurements

Bereaved families completed an anonymous, self-reported questionnaire. Their perspective on achieving a good death was assessed using the Good Death Inventory (GDI) (total score: 18-126). The Revised Care Evaluation Scale-short version (CES2) was used to assess EOL care (total score: 10-60). We examined the Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) (total score: 0-10) and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) (total score: 0-27).

Results

Data from 670 participants were analyzed, including 83 (12.4%) bereaved families of patients with coexisting cancer and dementia. No statistical differences were observed in the total GDI score for 18 items (dementia comorbidity vs. nondementia comorbidity groups, mean ± standard deviation, respectively, 78.4 ± 17.7 vs. 80.0 ± 15.5, adjusted [adj] P = 0.186), CES2 score (49.70 ± 9.22 vs. 48.82 ± 8.40, adj P = 0.316), BGQ score (3.40 ± 2.41 vs. 4.36 ± 2.28, adj P = 0.060), and PHQ9 score (4.67 ± 4.71 vs. 5.50 ± 5.37, adj P = 0.788).

Conclusions

GDI, CES2, BGQ, and PHQ9 scores did not differ significantly between groups, regardless of the presence of dementia in hospice and palliative care units. Patients with coexisting cancer and dementia can achieve a good death by high-quality EOL care.

Triadic Communication in Medical Encounters Including Individuals With Dementia: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The overall goal of this review was to identify what is known about triadic (clinician-patient-caregiver) communication in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia care settings throughout the care continuum.

METHODS

Using a structured search, we conducted a systematic scoping review of relevant published journal articles across 5 databases. Study titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles were screened by 2 investigators in Covidence systematic review software. Articles were excluded if they were not about clinical communication, focused only on caregiver-patient communication or communication in residential care, were interventional, lacked empirical data, or were not in English. Extracted data were documented using Google Forms.

RESULTS

The study team screened 3426 article titles and abstracts and 112 full-text articles. Forty-four articles were included in the final review. Results were categorized by 3 communication scenarios: diagnostic communication (n=22), general communication (n=16), and advanced care planning communication (n=6).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Across the included articles, the conceptualization and assessment of communication lacked homogeneity. Future directions include addressing these research gaps, establishing recommendations for clinicians to effectively communicate with individuals with dementia and caregivers, and creating and testing communication skills trainings for caregivers/family members, clinicians, and/or individuals with dementia to facilitate effective communication.

Best Practices for Communicating a Diagnosis of Dementia: Results of a Multi-Stakeholder Modified Delphi Consensus Process

Background and Objectives

Many individuals with dementia and their families report not receiving a dementia diagnosis. Previously published standards for delivering a dementia diagnosis are now more than 10 years old and were developed without patient and caregiver input. The objective of this study was to identify best practices for delivering a diagnosis of dementia using existing literature, involvement of diverse stakeholders, and consensus building through a formal modified Delphi approach.

Methods

We convened a multi-stakeholder working group including a patient, caregivers, Alzheimer's Association staff, and clinicians from diverse backgrounds. The panel used the American Academy of Neurology process for recommendation development, consisting of a half-day workshop and 3 rounds of anonymous modified Delphi voting to achieve consensus.

Results

The working group convened from May 2022 through January 2023. The group chose to focus statements on a limited number of best practices that can be applied across clinic types. Seven best practice statements achieved consensus after a maximum of 3 rounds of voting. These included the following: (1) Clinicians must show compassion and empathy when delivering a diagnosis of dementia (level A). During dementia diagnosis disclosure, clinicians should (2) ask regarding diagnosis preferences, (3) instill realistic hope, (4) provide practical strategies, (5) provide education and connections to high-quality resources, (6) connect caregivers to support resources, and (7) provide written summaries of the diagnoses, plan, and relevant resources (each level B).

Discussion

Clinicians need to customize discussion of a dementia diagnosis for individual patients and their caregivers. These 7 best practices provide a diagnosis communication framework that can be implemented across varied clinical settings. Additional strategies, such as using optimal general communication approaches, are also important for dementia diagnosis discussions. Thoughtful application of these best practices is particularly important when caring for individuals from underrepresented communities. Further improving communication regarding dementia diagnoses will require health system changes (e.g., for sufficient time), improved access to specialty dementia care, and clinician training for delivering difficult diagnoses. More research is needed to identify culturally sensitive approaches to discussing dementia diagnoses.

Primary care physicians' perspectives and challenges on managing multimorbidity for patients with dementia: a Japan-Michigan qualitative comparative study

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity management can be extremely challenging in patients with dementia. This study aimed to elucidate the approaches of primary care physicians in Japan and the United States (US) in managing multimorbidity for patients with dementia and discuss the challenges involved.

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted through one-on-one semi-structured interviews among primary care physicians, 24 each from Japan and Michigan, US. Thematic and content analyses were performed to explore similarities and differences among each country's data.

RESULTS

Primary care physicians in Japan and Michigan applied a relaxed adherence to the guidelines for patients' chronic conditions. Common challenges were the suboptimal consultation time, the insufficient number or ability of care-coordinating professionals, patients' conditions such as difficulties with self-management, living alone, behavioral issues, and refusal of care support. Unique challenges in Japan were free-access medical systems and not being sure about the patients' will in end-of-life care. In Michigan, physicians faced challenges in distance and lack of transportation between clinics and patients' homes and in cases where patients lacked the financial ability to acquire good care.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the quality of care for patients with multimorbidity and dementia, physicians would benefit from optimal time and compensation allocated for this patient group, guidelines for chronic conditions to include information regarding changing priority for older adults with dementia, and the close collaboration of medical and social care and community resources with support of skilled care-coordinating professionals.

Anticipated suicidal and death ideation in response to an imagined dementia diagnosis: A qualitative study

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are prevalent, highly impactful, and feared diagnoses. A mixed methods study using semi-structured interviews was conducted to clarify causes of dementia-related anxiety. Fifty community-dwelling adults aged 58 to 89 (M = 70.92, SD = 6.08) were recruited from a university participant registry and Memory Clinic; none had dementia diagnoses. Analyses revealed that 42% (n = 21) of participants anticipated suicidal or death ideation if diagnosed with dementia. Among participants endorsing anticipated suicidal or death ideation, responses ranged from active, specific plans, including interest in physician-assisted suicide, to more passive wishes to hasten death rather than continue to live with dementia. Within reports of both anticipated suicidal and death ideation, three subthemes emerged. Participants reported concerns about becoming a burden to others, the devaluation of life/loss of self with dementia, and the desire for (and anticipated thwarting of) personal control as factors contributing to their anticipated responses to a dementia diagnosis. Statements of anticipated suicidal and death ideation were contingent on a dementia diagnosis and may reflect errors in affective forecasting. Nevertheless, given the prevalence of dementias and older adults' elevated rates of suicide, the intersection of these two public health issues warrants greater attention.

Clinician approaches to communicating a dementia diagnosis: An interview study

Background

Individuals with cognitive impairment and their families place a high value on receiving a dementia diagnosis, but clinician approaches vary. There is a need for research investigating experiences of giving and receiving dementia diagnoses. The current study aimed to investigate clinician approaches to giving dementia diagnoses as part of a larger study investigating patient, caregiver, and clinician experiences during the diagnosis encounter.

Method

Investigators conducted telephone interviews with Florida-based clinicians who give dementia diagnoses either rarely or commonly. Interviews employed a semi-structured interview guide querying communication practices used by clinicians when giving dementia diagnoses and how clinicians learned to give dementia diagnoses. Investigators used a descriptive qualitative design to conduct a thematic analysis of data.

Results

Fifteen Florida-based clinicians participated, representing diverse backgrounds related to gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, and practice setting. Participants reported using patient- and family-centered communication practices including checking patient understanding, communicating empathically, and involving family members. Some clinicians explicitly asked patients and/or family members about their preferences regarding diagnosis disclosure; many clinicians tailored their disclosure based on patient and family characteristics or reactions. Some clinicians reported using specific diagnoses, while others used general terms such as “memory disorder.” Clinicians reported positively framing information, including instilling hope, focusing on healthy behaviors, and discussing symptom management. Finally, clinicians provided patient/family education and arranged follow up. Clinicians reported learning approaches to dementia diagnosis disclosure through formal training and self-education.

Conclusions

Diverse Florida-based clinicians described dementia disclosure practices largely consistent with published guidance, but clinicians varied on approaches relating to soliciting patient disclosure preferences and terminology used. Clinicians caring for diverse populations described that cultural background affects the disclosure process, but more research is needed regarding this finding and best practices for individuals from different backgrounds.

Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework

Objectives: To develop a thematic framework for the range of consequences arising from a diagnostic label from an individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, and community perspective. Design: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies. Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL for primary studies and syntheses of primary studies that explore the consequences of labelling non-cancer diagnoses. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and forward citation searches undertaken. Study Selection: We included peer reviewed publications describing the perceived consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer diagnostic label from four perspectives: that of the individual, their family/caregiver, healthcare professional and/or community members. We excluded studies using hypothetical scenarios. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction used a three-staged process: one third was used to develop a preliminary framework, the next third for framework validation, and the final third coded if thematic saturation was not achieved. Author themes and supporting quotes were extracted, and analysed from the perspective of individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, or community member. Results: After deduplication, searches identified 7,379 unique articles. Following screening, 146 articles, consisting of 128 primary studies and 18 reviews, were included. The developed framework consisted of five overarching themes relevant to the four perspectives: psychosocial impact (e.g., positive/negative psychological impact, social- and self-identity, stigma), support (e.g., increased, decreased, relationship changes, professional interactions), future planning (e.g., action and uncertainty), behaviour (e.g., beneficial or detrimental modifications), and treatment expectations (e.g., positive/negative experiences). Perspectives of individuals were most frequently reported. Conclusions: This review developed and validated a framework of five domains of consequences following diagnostic labelling. Further research is required to test the external validity and acceptability of the framework for individuals and their family/caregiver, healthcare professionals, and community.

Challenges in disclosing and receiving a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review of practice from the perspectives of people with dementia, carers, and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia is a key process involving people with dementia, carers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) that can facilitate access to treatment and support. Receiving a diagnosis of dementia may represent a change in identity and loss of a planned-for future, resulting in an emotional impact for both people with dementia and carers. Delivering the diagnosis of dementia can be difficult and draining for HCPs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review that included studies which explored the experience of giving or receiving a diagnosis of dementia from the perspectives of people with dementia, carers, or HCPs. All study designs were eligible except for previous literature reviews. Findings were analyzed thematically and grouped into categories and then synthesized into a narrative review. The quality of all included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included in this review. Findings indicated that receiving a diagnosis is generally a negative process for people with dementia, carers, and HCPs and leaves carers in particular feeling uncertain over the prognosis and future of the person they care for. Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia is a difficult and complex process, for which formal training and guidance is lacking. Carers in particular would welcome more opportunity for realistic and hopeful discussions of the implications of receiving a diagnosis of dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in some aspects of disclosure, such as providing a truthful diagnosis to the person with dementia, have occurred over the last decade. A process approach involving pre-diagnostic counseling and follow-up appointments could enable discussions regarding prognosis and the future, create opportunities to clarify the diagnosis, and reduce emotional burden on HCPs. There is a need for more objective evidence that considers the perspectives of all individuals involved.

Practices and perspectives of primary care physicians in Japan and the United States about diagnosing dementia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

While dementia is a common problem in Japan and the US, primary care physicians' practices and perspectives about diagnosing dementia in these different healthcare systems are unknown.

METHODS

Qualitative research was conducted in an ethnographic tradition using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis in primary care settings across Japan and in the Midwest State of Michigan, US. Participants were a total of 48 primary care physicians, 24 each from Japan and the US participated. Both groups contained a mixture of geographic areas (rural/urban), gender, age, and years of experience as primary care physicians.

RESULTS

Participants in Japan and the US voiced similar practices for making the diagnosis of dementia and held similar views about the desired benefits of diagnosing dementia. Differences were found in attitudes about the appropriate timing of formally diagnosing dementia. Japanese physicians tended to make a formal diagnosis when problems that would benefit from long-term care services emerged for family members. US physicians were more proactive in diagnosing dementia in the early stages by screening for dementia in health check-ups and promoting advance directives when the patients were still capable of decision-making. Views about appropriate timing of diagnostic testing for dementia in the two systems reflect what medical or nursing care services physicians can use to support dementia patients and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of making the diagnosis included the need to activate the long-term care services in Japan and for early intervention and authoring advance directives in the US. Testing to establish an early diagnosis of dementia by primary care physicians only partly relates to testing and treatment options available. Benefits of making the diagnosis included the need to activate the long-term care services in Japan and for early intervention and authoring advance directives in the US.

Attitude toward dementia and preferences for diagnosis in Japanese health service consumers

Background

Being diagnosed with dementia is a confronting experience for any individual and their caregiver. However, a diagnosis provides opportunity for future preparation for management of the condition. This study investigated attitudes toward dementia and preferences for diagnosis among a sample of health service consumers in Japan.

Methods

Participants were patients or accompanying support persons (n = 217) who visited the specialty outpatient clinic of four hospital departments. The survey was conducted using an iPad with answers sent automatically to a secure server. The survey included items about the participants’ most feared diseases and the reasons behind those fears, estimates of dementia prevalence in Japan, and preferences regarding a diagnosis of dementia and the reasons for their preference.

Results

The most feared disease was cancer (43.8 %), followed by dementia (18 %). Those selecting dementia most commonly reported practical, emotional and social impacts as the reasons why they most feared this condition. Almost all participants preferred to know the diagnosis of dementia as soon as possible for themselves, with significantly fewer preferring their spouse to know as soon as possible if they had dementia (95.9 % for self vs. 67.5 % for partner/spouse, p < 0.001). On average, participants estimated that 18.1 % of Japanese people are diagnosed with dementia by age 65, while they thought that 43.7 % of Japanese people are diagnosed with dementia by age 85.

Conclusions

The findings highlight a need for community education about the significant impacts of dementia on the lives of individuals and their caregivers. People were more reluctant for their spouse to receive a diagnosis as soon as possible if they had dementia. Physicians should sensitively disclose diagnosis and ensure they involve both the patient and their relatives in discussions about diagnosis disclosure.