Optimising care for patients with cognitive impairment and dementia following hip fracture

The global shift in demographics towards aging populations is leading to a commensurate increase in age-related disease and frailty. It is essential to optimise health services to meet current needs and prepare for anticipated future demands. This paper explores issues impacting on people living with cognitive impairment and/or dementia who experience a hip fracture and are cared for in acute settings. This is important given the high mortality and morbidity associated with this population. Given the current insufficiency of clear evidence on optimum rehabilitation of this patient group, this paper explored three key themes namely: recognition of cognitive impairment, response by way of training and education of staff to optimise care for this patient group and review of the importance of outcomes measures. Whilst there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the optimal ways of caring for patients living with dementia following hip fracture, this paper concludes that future research should improve understanding of healthcare staff education to improve the outcomes for this important group of patients

How well are the diagnosis and symptoms of dementia recorded in older patients admitted to hospital?

Introduction: in the United Kingdom dementia is generally diagnosed by mental health services. General hospitals are managed by separate healthcare trusts and the handover of clinical information between organisations is potentially unreliable. Around 40% of older people admitted to hospital have dementia. This group have a high prevalence of psychological symptoms and delirium. If the dementia diagnosis or symptoms are not recognised, patients may suffer unnecessarily with resulting negative outcomes. Methods: to understand areas of unmet need we have described the prevalence of dementia in over 75 year olds admitted to a general hospital, the accuracy of diagnostic recording, and the prevalence of recorded psychological symptoms and delirium. To achieve this we conducted a retrospective review of 116 patients admitted to hospital with known dementia. Psychiatric and medical notes were reviewed, identifying the accuracy dementia diagnosis recording by the hospital and all episodes of documented psychological symptoms and delirium. Results: the prevalence of documented dementia in the population was estimated at 15%; 74% of dementia diagnoses were recorded in the medical notes; 10% had documented psychological symptoms (depression 4%, anxiety 3%, hallucinations 3%, delusions 4%); and 11% had documented delirium. There were no associations between the specialty providing care and the recognition of dementia or the reporting of symptoms. Discussion: this work suggests an under reporting of dementia and symptoms associated with it in the general hospital. Improving this requires closer collaboration between metal health and hospital healthcare services and training for staff on how to access diagnostic information and recognise common psychological symptoms

The Barriers and Facilitators for Recognising Distress in People with Severe Dementia on General Hospital Wards.

Introduction: psychological symptoms and delirium are common, but underreported in people with dementia on hospital wards. Unrecognised and untreated symptoms can manifest as distress. Identifying distress accurately therefore could act as a trigger for better investigation and treatment of the underlying causes. The challenges faced by healthcare professionals to recognise and report distress are poorly understood. Methods: semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 25 healthcare professionals working with older people in general hospitals were conducted. Interviews were analysed generating themes that describe the facilitators and barriers of recognising and caring for distress in dementia. Results: regardless of training or experience all participants had a similar understanding of distress, and identified it as a term that is easily understood and communicated. All participants believed they recognised distress innately. However, the majority also believed it was facilitated by experience, being familiar with their patients and listening to the concerns of the person’s usual carers. Barriers to distress recognition included busy ward environments, and that some people may lack the skill to identify distress in hypoactive patients. Conclusion: distress may be a simple and easily identified marker of unmet need in people with dementia in hospital. However, modifiable and unmodifiable barriers are suggested that reduce the chance of distress being identified or acted on. Improving our understanding of how distress is identified in this environment, and in turn developing systems that overcome these barriers, may improve the accuracy with which distress is identified on hospital wards

The development and feasibility testing of the Distress Recognition Tool

Purpose: People with dementia in hospital are susceptible to delirium, pain and psychological symptoms. These diagnoses are associated with worse patient outcomes, yet are often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Distress is common in people experiencing delirium, pain and psychological symptoms. Screening for distress may therefore be a sensitive way of recognising unmet needs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and feasibility testing of the Distress Recognition Tool (DRT). The DRT is a single question screening tool that is incorporated into existing hospital systems. It encourages healthcare professionals to regularly look for distress and signposts them to relevant resources when distress is identified. Design/methodology/approach: The authors tested the feasibility of using the DRT in people with dementia admitted on two general hospital wards. Mixed methods were used to assess uptake and potential mechanisms of impact, including frequency of use, observation of ward processes and semi-structured interviews with primary stakeholders. Findings: Over a 52-day period, the DRT was used during routine care of 32 participants; a total of 346 bed days. The DRT was completed 312 times; an average of 0.9 times per participant per day. Where participants had an identified carer, 83 per cent contributed to the assessment at least once during the admission. Thematic analysis of stakeholder interviews, and observational data suggested that the DRT was quick and simple to complete, improved ward awareness of distress and had the potential to improve care for people with dementia admitted to hospital. Originality/value: This is the first short screening tool for routinely detecting distress in dementia in any setting. Its uptake was positive, and if effective it could improve care and outcomes for people with dementia, however it was beyond the scope of the study test this