Quality Improvement in Neurology: Dementia Management Quality Measures

Center for Innovative Care in Aging (L.N.G.), Community Public Health, School of Nursing and Department of Psychiatry, Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.29). 09/2013; 81(17). DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a956bf
Source: PubMed


Professional and advocacy organizations have long urged that dementia be recognized and properly diagnosed.(1,2) With the passage of the National Alzheimer's Project Act(3) in 2011, an Advisory Council for Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services was convened to advise the Department of Health and Human Services. In May 2012, the Council produced the first National Plan to address Alzheimer disease and prominent in its recommendations is a call for quality measures suitable for evaluating and tracking dementia care in clinical settings.(4) Although other efforts have been made to set dementia care quality standards, such as those pioneered by RAND in its series Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)(5), implementation has not been widely embraced by practitioners, health care systems, or insurers. In this Executive Summary (full manuscript on www.neurology.org), we report on a new measurement set for dementia management developed by an interdisciplinary Dementia Measures Work Group (DWG) representing the major national organizations and advocacy organizations concerned with the care of patients with dementia. This effort was led by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Medical Directors Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI). Both the ACOVE measures and the measurement set described here apply to patients whose dementia has already been identified and properly diagnosed. Though similar in concept to ACOVE, the DWG measurement set differs in several important ways: it includes all stages of dementia in a single measure set, calls for the use of functional staging in planning care, prompts the use of validated instruments in patient and caregiver assessment and intervention, highlights the relevance of using palliative care concepts to guide care prior to the advanced stages of illness, and provides evidence-based support for its recommendations and guidance on the selection of instruments useful in tracking patient-centered outcomes. In addition, the DWG measurement set specifies annual reassessment and updating of interventions and care plans for dementia-related problems that affect families and other caregivers as well as patients. Here, we first provide a brief synopsis of why major reforms in health care design and delivery are needed in order to achieve substantive improvements in the quality of care, and then list the final measures approved for publication, dissemination, and implementation.

Download full-text


Available from: Soo Borson, Oct 31, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improving dementia care in health systems requires estimates of need in the population served. We explored whether dementia-specific service needs and gaps for patients and caregivers could be predicted by simple information readily captured in routine care settings. Primary family caregivers (n = 215) rated their own current stress, challenging patient behaviors, and prior-year needs and gaps in 16 medical and psychosocial services. These were evaluated with other patient and caregiver characteristics in multivariate regressions to identify unique predictors of service needs and gaps. Caregiver stress and patient behavior problems together accounted for an average of 24% of the whole-sample variance in total needs and gaps. All other variables combined (comorbid chronic disease, dementia severity, age, caregiver relationship, and residence) accounted for a mean of 3%, with none yielding more than 4% in any equation. We combined stress and behavior problem indicators into a simple screen. In early/mild dementia dyads (n = 111) typical in primary care settings, the screen identified gaps in total (84%) and psychosocial (77%) care services for high stress/high behavior problem dyads vs. 25% and 23%, respectively, of low stress/low behavior problem dyads. Medical care gaps were dramatically higher in high stress/high behavior problem dyads (66%) than all others (12%). The Dementia Services Mini-Screen is a simple tool that could help clinicians and health systems rapidly identify dyads needing enhanced dementia care, track key patient and caregiver outcomes of interventions, and estimate population needs for new service development.
    The American journal of geriatric psychiatry: official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 11/2013; 22(8). DOI:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.11.001 · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Noncognitive neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia (aggression, agitation, depression, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, apathy, disinhibition) affect individuals with dementia nearly universally across dementia stages and etiologies. NPS are associated with poor outcomes for individuals with dementia and caregivers, including excess morbidity and mortality, greater healthcare use, and earlier nursing home placement, as well as caregiver stress, depression, and difficulty with employment. Although the Food and Drug Administration has not approved pharmacotherapy for NPS, psychotropic medications are frequently used to manage these symptoms, but in the few cases of proven pharmacological efficacy, significant risk of adverse effects may offset benefits. There is evidence of efficacy and limited potential for adverse effects of nonpharmacological treatments, typically considered first line, but their uptake as preferred treatments remains inadequate in real-world clinical settings. Thus, the field currently finds itself in a predicament in terms of management of these difficult symptoms. It was in this context that the University of Michigan Program for Positive Aging, working in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease Research Center and Center for Innovative Care in Aging sponsored and convened a multidisciplinary expert panel in Detroit, Michigan, in fall 2011 with three objectives: to define critical elements of care for NPS in dementia; to construct an approach describing the sequential and iterative steps of managing NPS in real-world clinical settings that can be used as a basis for integrating nonpharmacological and pharmacological approaches; and to discuss how the approach generated could be implemented in research and clinical care.
    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 03/2014; 62(4). DOI:10.1111/jgs.12730 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States, one in nine people ages sixty-five and older and one-third of people ages eighty-five and older have Alzheimer's disease. The number of cases of Alzheimer's disease is projected to triple by 2050, from 5.0 million in 2013 to 13.8 million. This will challenge the health care workforce, which is already inadequate in both size and training. We assessed what is likely to be an increasing shortage of physicians, nurses, and social workers with specialized training in geriatrics and, more specifically, in the care of people with dementia. We highlight the limited training of health care professionals in best practices of dementia care and chronic disease management. To address these shortfalls, we recommend the dissemination of team-based models of care that integrate health and social services; expansion of education loan forgiveness and faculty development programs to attract students into clinician-educator careers focusing on Alzheimer's disease; inclusion of curricula specific to the disease in all health professions training; expansion of federal programs to train existing workers; and increased compensation for the direct care workforce.
    Health Affairs 04/2014; 33(4):633-41. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1232 · 4.97 Impact Factor
Show more