Triple aim improvement for individuals, services and society in dementia care : The DementiaNet collaborative care approach

Background

A redesigning of primary care is required to meet dementia patients’ needs. In the Netherlands, current dementia care still falls short in areas including ad hoc collaboration, lack of feedback on quality to professionals involved, and insufficient implementation of established multidisciplinary guidelines.

Objective

DementiaNet is a collaborative care approach, which aims to reduce the burden of the disease on individuals, healthcare services and society via network-based care that encourages collaboration, enhances knowledge and skills and stimulates quality improvement cycles.

Material and methods

DementiaNet was developed to support primary care networks through implementation of five core processes: network-based care, clinical leadership, quality improvement cycles, interprofessional practice-based training and communication support tools, following a stepwise tailor-made approach. Alongside this, a mixed method study was designed to evaluate innovation and effectiveness.

Results

Currently, 18 networks have been formed. These vary in quality of care and strength of collaboration due to local circumstances. Initial activities and goals of each network also vary, ranging from acquaintance to shared care plans. Ongoing research will identify barriers, facilitators and merits of the approach in increasing quality of care and ultimately improving outcomes for patient, carer, health service and society.

Conclusion

Initial results show that clinical practice varies and the DementiaNet approach can lead to quality improvement. Complexity and variety of local care requires complex interventions and evaluation methods that account for this in order to safeguard the value for practice. Strict methodology lessens external validity.

Efficacy and safety of medical cannabinoids in older subjects: a systematic review

This systematic review aims to integrate the evidence on indications, efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of medical cannabinoids in older subjects. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. We selected controlled trials including solely older subjects (≥65 years) or reporting data on older subgroups. 105 (74%) papers, on controlled intervention trials, reported the inclusion of older subjects. Five studies reported data on older persons separately. These were randomized controlled trials, including in total 267 participants (mean age 47-78 years). Interventions were oral tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (n=3) and oral THC combined with cannabidiol (n=2). The studies showed no efficacy on dyskinesia, breathlessness and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Two studies showed that THC might be useful in treatment of anorexia and behavioral symptoms in dementia. Adverse events were more common during cannabinoid treatment compared to the control treatment, and were most frequently sedation like symptoms. Although trials studying medical cannabinoids included older subjects, there is a lack of evidence of its use specifically in older patients. Adequately powered trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids in older subjects, as the potential symptomatic benefit is especially attractive in this age group.

Sleep matters in Parkinson's disease: use of a priority list to assess the presence of sleep disturbances

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite their high prevalence and clinical impact, sleep disorders in Parkinson's disease appear to receive insufficient attention in clinical practice. We compared the importance of sleep disorders relative to other symptoms and daily issues. Furthermore, we determined whether relevance as perceived by patients correlated with the subjective presence of sleep disruption scored with a rating scale.

METHODS

We studied a cohort of 153 consecutive patients (95 men) who were referred for problems other than sleep to our referral center. Prior to their visit, patients ranked their individual top five clinical priorities (of 23 items), indicating the most problematic domains for which they requested medical attention. Additionally, nocturnal sleep quality and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) were assessed with validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

The top three important domains according to the patient were movement (79.9%), medication (73.2%), and physical condition (63.4%). Sleep was the sixth most frequently reported item, marked by 37.9% of the patients. Amongst the patients who scored sleep as a priority, 47 (81%) had a poor sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index > 5). Although EDS was present in almost 30% of patients, a minority of them put it on their priority list.

CONCLUSION

A priority list can be used to prioritize patient-centered quality of life issues. Our results show that sleep is a clinical priority for about one-third of patients. Surprisingly, EDS was usually not prioritized by patients during the consultation, underscoring the need to use ratings scales alongside subjective priorities.