Charlotte Leikert’s research while affiliated with University of Cologne and other places

Background Guidelines recommend the identification of potential mental and/or cognitive disorders (MCD) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, compliance with these guidelines appears to be lacking in primary care. A minimal invasive intervention was tailored with experts for the primary care setting to increase the identification of this patient group and ensure proper treatment. The intervention includes: A trigger question, screening tests and question prompt sheet for patients. Following the implementation of this intervention in primary care physician (PCP) offices, the aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation outcomes. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten PCPs who tested the intervention for six months. The study was guided by Proctor’s Framework on Implementation Outcomes to understand the appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity and sustainability of the intervention as proxies for implementation success. Results Relevance of the topic and the need for the intervention is recognised by all of the PCPs. All PCPs were willing to try the intervention and considered it generally appropriate and feasible. Additionally, supporting implementation resources were considered helpful in familiarising with the intervention. Screening of patients with a first diagnosis of CHD, those who have had experienced a recent coronary event and those who have been hospitalised for CHD is considered practical and appropriate. Known barriers such as lack of knowledge, perceived relevance and awareness were successfully addressed. It was not possible to overcome barriers such as time pressure, forgetfulness, and patient reaction. Additionally, the paper format of the information materials was perceived as impractical, and integration into the physician information system was identified as a possible way to increase acceptance. Nevertheless, PCPs stated they will continue to be aware of the link between CHD and MCD and want to maintain their individualised approach. Conclusions The study provides important insights into the use of a minimal invasive intervention in primary care. Despite tailoring the intervention to the primary care setting, implementation success was suboptimal due to individual barriers in PCP offices. This highlights the need for tailored approaches at the level of individual PCP offices to better address context-specific barriers.

Background Coronary heart disease (CHD) is often associated with mental disorders (MDs). Comorbid MDs reduce the quality of life and increase cardiac morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, there is little and inconsistent research on the management of MDs in CHD patients. To bridge this gap, this study aims to gain insight into the long-term course of MD-related health care for patients with CHD, in order to identify opportunities for care improvement. Methods In this prospective cohort study, we investigated whether CHD patients with or without expert-rated MD at baseline (N = 364) received different MD-related health care from either their general practitioner (GP) or cardiologist at follow-up, M = 2.7 [2.0–4.0] years later. In the follow-up assessment, N = 131 CHD patients participated and received questionnaires capturing sociodemographic, mental health, and MD-related health care characteristics. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and chi-squared tests were used for analyses. Results We found significant differences in MD-related health care. CHD patients with MD were more likely to be examined psychologically/psychiatrically (MD 55.9%, non-MD 16.7%, p = < .001) and diagnosed with MD (MD 55.9%, non-MD 13.5%, p = .020) by their GP or cardiologist. Recommendations for and responses to requests for psychotherapy were more likely in MD patients compared to non-MD patients (MD 38.7%, non-MD 11.8%, p = .012 and MD 38.5%, non-MD 11.8%, p = .031, respectively). No significant differences were found concerning physicians’ active demand for patients’ mental health, referral to a specialist for additional diagnostics, provision of information about the diagnosed MD and further treatment options, response to the patients’ request for psychopharmacotherapy, help received in finding psychotherapy or psychopharmacotherapy, and actual receipt of these treatments. Conclusions The results indicate differences in MD-related health care of CHD patients with and without comorbid MD. However, they still highlight the need to further encourage primary care physicians treating CHD to adequately address MDs, provide further diagnostics, support, and information to affected patients. To address this, physicians may benefit from awareness training on the association between CHD and MDs and on appropriate communication with MD patients. Trial registration German clinical trials register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) Registration Number: ID DRKS00022154, date of registration: 02.11.2021.

Background Coronary heart disease (CHD) and dementia often co‐occur in the aging population. In addition, CHD seems to increase the risk for subsequent cognitive decline, which may in turn negatively affect the prognosis of CHD. Current CHD guidelines therefore recommend appropriate diagnosis and management of comorbid cognitive impairment. Here, we present the progression and characteristics of cognitive impairment in a group of patients with CHD and their perception of care in the patient‐physician‐relationship. Method For the MenDis‐CHD study, n = 364 patients with CHD were recruited from cardiologic hospital departments, rehabilitation clinics and cardiologist practices in Cologne, Germany. Medical records were used to assess severity of CHD and comorbidities. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification was applied for estimation of heart failure‐related symptom severity. Each patient was screened for cognitive impairment (DemTect) and depressive or anxiety symptoms (HADS questionnaire) as well as for subjective cognitive deficits. Patients were asked whether cognitive impairment was discussed with the treating physician. A follow‐up was carried out after M = 3.19 [2.2‐4.2] years in n = 118 patients. We compared patients whose cognition declined based on DemTect score to those who remained stable using t‐tests/Mann‐Whitney‐U‐tests and X²‐tests. Result At baseline, 10.2% of patients were screened positive for cognitive impairment, while 18.4% reported subjective cognitive deficits. Patients with a decline in cognition between study visits were significantly older (M = 67.9 vs. M = 63.1, t(115) = ‐2.7, p = .009) and showed more depressive symptoms (M = 5.0 vs. M = 3.8, t(115) = ‐2.1, p = .039). They also had more severe NYHA grades (M = 2.1 vs. M = 1.7, U(102) = 2044.5, p = .011) and a concomitant cerebrovascular diagnosis was more frequent compared to patients who did not decline (20.0% vs. 4.1%, X²(1) = 5.2, p = .048). Out of those who experienced either subjective or objective impairment at baseline (n = 88), 38.6% indicated that cognitive symptoms had previously been addressed during visits with their primary attending physician and 9.1% had been actively approached by their physician in this regard. Conclusion A relevant proportion of CHD patients displayed cognitive symptoms at baseline with progression at follow‐up. Conversations about cognitive symptoms with the physician occurred only in a minority. Our data supports the importance of raising awareness about the link between CHD and cognitive impairment in physicians.

Mental and cognitive disorders (MCD) negatively affect the incidence and prognosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Medical guidelines recommend the appropriate management of comorbid MCD in patients with CHD, yet there is evidence that the implementation in primary care is not always adequate. We present the protocol for a pilot study that aims to develop a minimally invasive intervention and evaluate its feasibility in the primary care setting to improve the identification and management of comorbid MCD in patients with CHD. The study consists of two consecutive parts and will be carried out in Cologne, Germany. Part 1 comprises the development and tailoring of the intervention, which is guided by qualitative interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 10), patients with CHD and MCD and patient representatives (n = 10). Part II focuses on the implementation and evaluation of the intervention in n = 10 PCP offices. Changes in PCP behaviour will be analysed by comparing routine data in the practice management system six months before and six months after study participation. In addition, we will explore the influence of organisational characteristics and perform a socio-economic impact assessment. The outcomes of this mixed-method study will inform the feasibility of a PCP-based intervention to improve quality of care in patients with CHD and comorbid MCD.