Feasibility of remote Memory Clinics using the plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycle

Introduction A timely diagnosis of dementia is crucial for initiating and maintaining support for people living with dementia. The coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic temporarily halted Memory Clinics, where this is organised, and rate of dementia diagnosis has fallen. Despite increasing use of alternatives to face-to-face (F2F) consultations in other departments, it is unclear whether this is feasible within the traditional Memory Clinic model. Aims The main aim of this service improvement project performed during the pandemic was to explore feasibility of telephone (TC) and videoconference (VC) Memory Clinic consultations. Methods Consecutive patients on the Memory Clinic waiting list were telephoned and offered an initial appointment by VC or TC. Data extracted included: age, internet-enabled device ownership, reason for and choice of Memory Clinic assessment. We noted Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (TC) and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (VC via Attend Anywhere) scores, and feasibility of consultation. Results Out of 100 patients, 12 had a home assessment, moved away, been hospitalised, or died. 45, 21 and 6 preferred F2F, VC and TC assessments respectively. 16 were not contactable and offered a F2F appointment. The main reason for preferring F2F was non-ownership, or inability to use an internet-enabled device (80%). VC and TC preference reasons were unwillingness to come to hospital (59%), and convenience (41%). Attendance rate was 100% for VC and TC, but 77% for F2F. Feasibility (successful consultations) was seen in 90% (VC) and 67% (TC) patients. Conclusion For able and willing patients, remote Memory Consultations can be both feasible and beneficial. This has implications for future planning in dementia services

The Clinical Frailty Scale : estimating the prevalence of frailty in older patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The COPE study

Acknowledgments: The COPE study collaborators.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE) : a multicentre, European, observational cohort study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Routine Use of Immunosuppressants is Associated with Mortality in Hospitalised Patients with Covid-19

Acknowledgement We acknowledge the dedication, commitment, and sacrifice of the staff from participating centres across UK and Italy, two among the most severely affected countries in Europe. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of our collaborators, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Research Authority (HRA) in the UK and Ethics Committee of Policlinico Hospital Modena, which provided rapid approval of COPE study and respective Institutions’ Research and Development Offices and Caldicott Guardians for their assistance and guidance. We also thank COPE Study Sponsor, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. Methods This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1–2=fit; 3–4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5–6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7–9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). Findings Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61–83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5–8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1–2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00–2·41) for CFS 3–4, 1·83 (1·15–2·91) for CFS 5–6, and 2·39 (1·50–3·81) for CFS 7–9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63–2·38) for CFS 3–4, 1·62 (0·81–3·26) for CFS 5–6, and 3·12 (1·56–6·24) for CFS 7–9. Interpretation In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19

Chronic pain in people living with dementia: challenges to recognising and managing pain, and personalising intervention by phenotype

Pain is common in people with dementia, and pain can exacerbate the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Effective pain management is challenging, not least in people with dementia. Impairments of cognition, communication and abstract thought can make communicating pain unreliable or impossible. It is unclear which biopsychosocial interventions for pain management are effective in people with dementia, and which interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia are effective in people with pain. The result is that drugs, physical therapies and psychological therapies might be either underused or overused. People with dementia and pain could be helped by assessment processes that characterise an individual’s pain experience and dementia behaviours in a mechanistic manner, phenotyping. Chronic pain management has moved from a ‘one size fits all’ approach, towards personalised medicine, where interventions recommended for an individual depend upon the key mechanisms underlying their pain, and the relative values they place on benefits and adverse effects. Mechanistic phenotyping through careful personalised evaluation would define the mechanisms driving pain and dementia behaviours in an individual, enabling the formulation of a personalised intervention strategy. Central pain processing mechanisms are particularly likely to be important in people with pain and dementia, and interventions to accommodate and address these may be particularly helpful, not only to relieve pain but also the symptoms of dementia