Tailored educational intervention for primary care to improve the management of dementia: the EVIDEM-ED cluster randomized controlled trial

Jane Wilcock, Steve Iliffe, Mark Griffin, Priya Jain, Ingela Thuné-Boyle, Frances Lefford, David Rapp, Jane Wilcock, Steve Iliffe, Mark Griffin, Priya Jain, Ingela Thuné-Boyle, Frances Lefford, David Rapp

Abstract

Background: Early diagnosis of dementia is important because this allows those with dementia and their families to engage support and plan ahead. However, dementia remains underdetected and suboptimally managed in general practice. Our objective was to test the effect of a workplace-based tailored educational intervention developed for general practice on the clinical management of people with dementia.

Methods: The tailored educational intervention was tested in an unblinded cluster randomized controlled trial with a pre/post-intervention design, with two arms: usual/normal care control versus educational intervention. The primary outcome measure was an increase in the proportion of patients with dementia who received at least two documented dementia-specific management reviews per year. Case identification was a secondary outcome measure.

Results: 23 practices in South-East England participated. A total of 1,072 patients with dementia (intervention: 512, control: 560) had information in their medical records showing the number of reviews within 12 months (or a proportion of) before intervention or randomization and within 12 months (or a proportion of) after. The mean total number of dementia management reviews after the educational intervention for people with dementia was 0.89 (SD 1.09; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 8) compared with 0.89 (SD 0.92; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 4) before intervention. In the control group prior to randomization the mean total number of dementia management reviews was 1.66 (SD 1.87; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 12) and in the period after randomization it was 1.56 (SD 1.79; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 11). Case detection rates were unaffected. The estimated incidence rate ratio for intervention versus control group was 1.03 (P = 0.927, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.86).

Conclusions: The trial was timely, coinciding with financial incentives for dementia management in general practice (through the Quality Outcomes Framework); legal imperatives (in the form of the Mental Capacity Act 2005); policy pressure (The National Dementia Strategy 2009); and new resources (such as dementia advisors) that increased the salience of dementia for general practitioners. Despite this the intervention did not alter the documentation of clinical management of patients with dementia in volunteer practices, nor did it increase case identification.

Trial registration: NCT00866099/Clinical Trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The EVIDEM-ED flow diagram.

References

    1. Bamford C, Lamont S, Eccles M, Robinson L, May C, Bond J. Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:151–169. doi: 10.1002/gps.1050.
    1. Pratt R, Wilkinson H. A psychosocial model of understanding the experience of receiving a diagnosis of dementia. Dementia. 2003;2:181–199. doi: 10.1177/1471301203002002004.
    1. Husband HJ. The psychological consequences of learning a diagnosis of dementia: three case examples. Aging Ment Health. 1999;3:179–183. doi: 10.1080/13607869956352.
    1. Smith AP, Beattie BL. Disclosing a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: patients and families’ experiences. Can J Neurol Sci. 2001;28(Suppl 1):67–71.
    1. Pucci E, Angeleri F, Borsetti G, Brizioli E, Cartechini E, Giuliani G, Solari A. General practitioners facing dementia: are they fully prepared? Neurol Sci. 2004;24:384–389. doi: 10.1007/s10072-003-0193-0.
    1. Vernooij-Dassen M, Moniz-Cook E, Woods R, De Lepeleire J, Leuschner A, Zanetti O, de Rotrou J, Kenny J, Franco M, Peters V, Iliffe S. INTERDEM group: Factors affecting the timely recognition and diagnosis of dementia in primary care across eight European states: a modified focus group study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20:1–10. doi: 10.1002/gps.1255.
    1. Boustani M, Peterson B, Hanson L, Harris R, Lohr KN. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for dementia in primary care: a summary of the evidence for the US preventive services task force. Ann Int med. 2003;138:927–937.
    1. NICE. NICE clinical guideline 42: Dementia. Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. [ ]
    1. Turner S, Iliffe S, Downs M, Wilcock J, Bryans M, Levin E, Keady J, O'Carroll R. General practitioners’ knowledge, confidence and attitudes in the diagnosis and management of dementia. Age Ageing. 2004;33:461–467. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afh140.
    1. Iliffe S, Wilcock J. The identification of barriers to the recognition of and response to dementia in primary care using a modified focus group method. Dementia. 2005;4:73–85. doi: 10.1177/1471301205049191.
    1. Perry M, Drascovic I, Lucassen P, Vernooij-Dassen M, van Achterberg T, Rikkert M. Effects of educational interventions on primary dementia care: systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26:1–11. doi: 10.1002/gps.2479.
    1. Department of Health. National Dementia Strategy. London, UK: DoH; 2009.
    1. BMA. Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance for GMS contract 2011/12: Delivering investment in general practice. [ ]
    1. BMA. Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance for GMS contract 2009/10. [ ]
    1. Downs M, Turner S, Iliffe S, Bryans M, Wilcock J, Keady J, Levin E, O’Carroll RE, Howie K, Iliffe S. Effectiveness of educational interventions in improving detection and management of dementia in primary care: cluster randomized controlled study. BMJ. 2006;332:692–696. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7543.692.
    1. Iliffe S, Jain P, Wong G, Lefford F, Gupta S, Warner A, Kennedy H. Dementia diagnosis in primary care: thinking outside the educational box. Aging Health. 2009;5:51–59. doi: 10.2217/1745509X.5.1.51.
    1. Jordan ME, Lanham HJ, Crabtree BF, Nutting PA, Miller WL, Stange KC, McDaniel RR. The role of conversation in health care interventions: enabling sensemaking and learning Implementation. Science. 2009;4:15.
    1. Grant J. Learning needs assessment: assessing the need. BMJ. 2002;324:156–159. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7330.156.
    1. Green M. Evaluating evidence based practice performance. Evid Based Med. 2006;11:99–100. doi: 10.1136/ebm.11.4.99.
    1. Sackett D, Straus S. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds. JAMA. 1998;280:1336–1338. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1336.
    1. Khunti K. Teaching evidence-based medicine using educational prescriptions in general practice. Med Teach. 1998;20:380–381. doi: 10.1080/01421599880841.
    1. Leykum LK, Palmer R, Lanham H, Jordan M, McDaniel RR, Noel PH, Parchman M. Reciprocal learning and chronic care model implementation in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:44. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-44.
    1. Nowlem PM. A New Approach to Continuing Education for Business and the Professions. New York, NY: MacMillan; 1988.
    1. Grant J, Stanton F. The effectiveness of continuing professional development. Edinburgh, UK: The Association for the Study of Medical Education; 2000.
    1. Iliffe S, Koch T, Jain P, Lefford F, Wong G, Warner A, Wilcock J. Developing an educational intervention on dementia diagnosis and management in primary care for the EVIDEM-ED trial. Trials. 2012;13:142. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-142.
    1. Iliffe S, Wilcock J, Griffin M, Jain P, Thuné-Boyle I, Koch T, Lefford F. Evidence-based interventions in dementia: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of an educational intervention to promote earlier recognition and response to dementia in primary care (EVIDEM-ED) Trials. 2010;11:13. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-13.
    1. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JAC, Burney PCJ. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:5.
    1. Research Randomizer. Research Randomizer, a free online tool available for researchers. [ ]
    1. Medical Research Council. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) in Clinical Trials. London, UK: MRC; 1998.
    1. IBM. SPSS Statistics. [ ]
    1. British Department for Communities and Local Government. The indices of deprivation 2010 (ID 2010) (DCLG) [ ]
    1. Medical Research Council. A Framework for Development and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health. London, UK: MRC; 2000.
    1. Kaulio M. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: a framework and a review of selected methods. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 1998;9:141–149.
    1. Paton N, Callander R, Cavill M, Ning L, Weavell W. Collaborative quality improvement: consumers, carers and mental health service providers working together in service co-design. Australas Psychiatry. 2013;21:78–79. doi: 10.1177/1039856212465347.
    1. Piper D, Ledema R, Gray J, Verma R, Holmes L, Manning N. Utilizing experience-based co-design to improve the experience of patients accessing emergency departments in New South Wales public hospitals: an evaluation study. Health Serv Manage Res. 2012;25:162–172. doi: 10.1177/0951484812474247.
    1. Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012;125:76–87.
    1. Bate P, Robert G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:307–310. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.016527.
    1. Rubinstein L, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:S58–S64.
    1. Davis D, Mazmanian P, Fordis M, van Harrison R, Thorpe K, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence. JAMA. 2006;296:1094–1102. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1094.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa