Background
-
How is dementia defined and measured in health services research studies in German nursing homes?
-
Which implications can be derived for health services research in nursing homes?
Methodology of the review
Literature search strategy
Data extraction and method of analysis
Results
Publication | Author | Study aim | Study design | Sample size | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NH | P | ||||
Experimental studies | |||||
[54] | Bär et al. 2006 | Efficacy of an individual approach in the care of people with dementia to stimulate positive emotions | CT | N/A | 46 |
[82] | Berg et al. 2010 | Efficacy of snoezelen, structured reminiscence therapy and 10-minute activation on apathy in dementia | C-RCT | N/A | 360 |
[107] | Dichter et al. 2015 | Testing the effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping on PwD and caregivers, exploring implementation facilitators and barriers | CT | 9 | 154 |
[76] | Graessel et al. 2011 | Efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention on the cognition of residents with dementia | RCT (Follow-up) | 5 | 98 |
[108] | Halek et al. 2013 | Efficacy of dementia care mapping on the quality of life of residents with dementia | CT | 9 | N/A |
[70] | Kuske et al. 2009 | Effectiveness of a nursing home training staff for the interaction between residents with dementia and their caregivers | C-RCT | 6 | 298 |
[77] | Luttenberger et al. 2012 | Efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention on dementia symptoms and need of care in NH residents with dementia | RCT | 5 | 139 |
[78] | Luttenberger et al. 2012 | Sustainability of a non-pharmacological intervention after 10 months | RCT (Follow-up) | 5 | 61 |
[48] | Majic et al. 2013 | Efficacy of animal-assisted therapy on agitation/aggression and depression in nursing home residents with dementia | RCT | 18 | 65 |
[80] | Pickel et al. 2011 | Efficacy of occupational group therapy in dementia | CT | N/A | 56 |
[51] | Rapp et al. 2013 | Efficacy of a complex guideline-based intervention on agitation and the use of psychotropic drugs | C-RCT | 18 | 304 |
[47] | Reuther et al. 2014 | Effect evaluation of dementia-specific case conferences (study protocol) | C-RCT | 12 | 360 |
[109] | Schäufele et al. 2013 | Efficacy of an interdisciplinary guideline to enhance the mobility of residents with dementia in nursing homes | CT | 31 | 707 |
[110] | Schäufele et al. 2015 | ||||
[81] | Treusch et al. 2015 | Effect evaluation of an occupational and sports therapy intervention for PwD in NH | C-RCT | 18 | 117 |
Observational studies | |||||
[85]a
| Afram et al. 2014 | Exploration of reasons and variations for institutionalization of people with dementia in 8 European countries according to caregivers | Cross-sectional | 3 | 786 |
[86]a
| Alvira et al. 2015 | Description of the association between reactions of informal caregivers of people with dementia and health outcomes from 8 European countries | Cross-sectional | N/A | 119 |
[61] | Becker et al. 2005 | Development and validation of an instrument to assess quality of life in dementia | Cross-sectional | 11 | 121 |
[87]a
| Beerens et al. 2014 | Exploration of the variance of quality of life and quality of care for people with dementia from 8 European countries | Cross-sectional | N/A | 119 |
[88] | Beerens et al. 2015 | Assessment of factors that contribute to the change of quality of life of people with dementia recently admitted to an NH from 8 European countries | Longitudinal | N/A | 791 |
[22] | Brune-Cohrs et al. 2007 | Quality of dementia diagnosis in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 2 | 200 |
[89]a
| De Mauleon et al. 2014 | Determination of factors associated with the antipsychotic prescription for PwD in 8 European countries | Cross-sectional | N/A | 119 |
[83] | Dettbarn-Reggentin 2005 | Evaluation of milieu-therapeutic living units on residents with dementia | Longitudinal | 3 | 60 |
[53] | Dichter et al. 2013 | Validation of the QUALIDEM in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 43 | 634 |
[111] | Dichter et al. 2014 | Testing of the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the QUALIDEM instrument to measure quality of life in PwD | Cross-sectional | 9 | 161 |
[44]a
| Foebel et al. 2014 | Description of patterns of antipsychotic drug use in PwD in nursing homes in 7 European countries and Israel | Cross-sectional | 9 | 496 |
[72] | Geiger-Kabsich and Weyerer 1993 | Validity of the Alters-Konzentrations-Test | Cross-sectional | 2 | 71 |
[91] | Gietzelt et al. 2014 | Study protocol for an RCT testing the effectiveness of behavioral treatment for mild Alzheimer’s patients | Longitudinal | 1 | 40 |
[41] | Graessel et al. 2009 | Validation of the Erlangen Test of Activities of Daily Living (E-ADL) | Cross-sectional | 2 | 46 |
[45] | Gräske et al. 2014 | Examination of variability and associated factors of quality of life ratings | Cross-sectional | 5 | 133 |
[66] | Jakob et al. 2002 | Prevalence and incidence of dementia in nursing homes compared to private households | Longitudinal | N/A | 192 |
[69] | Köhler et al. 2007 | Validation of the Dementia Screening Scale (DSS) | Cross-sectional | 20 | 589 |
[37] | Kölzsch et al. 2012 | Description of pain treatment in nursing home residents with CI | Cross-sectional | 40 | 560 |
[68] | König et al. 2014 | Comparison of the costs of care for community-dwelling PwD and PwD living in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | N/A | 48 |
[62] | Lueken et al. 2007 | Development of a short version of the Apathy Evaluation Scale specifically adapted for nursing home residents with dementia | Cross-sectional | N/A | 356 |
[79] | Luttenberger et al. 2012 | Revalidation of the E-ADL scale | Cross-sectional | 5 | 139 |
[49] | Majic et al. 2010 | Pharmacotherapy in residents with dementia | Cross-sectional | 18 | 304 |
[50] | Majic et al. 2012 | Correlation of agitation and depression in nursing home residents with dementia | Cross-sectional | 18 | 304 |
[46] | Makai et al. 2014 | Validation of the ICECAP-O measure for wellbeing in older PwD in NH and exploration of response-associated factors | Cross-sectional | 1 | 95 |
[58] | Marquard and Schmieg 2009 | Relationship between architectural characteristics of the nursing home and the residents ability to perform way finding tasks | Cross-sectional | N/A | 450 |
[59] | |||||
[75] | Meyer-König et al. 1984 | Examination of nursing home residents with a chronic brain syndrome | Cross-sectional | N/A | 163 |
[38] | Osterbrink et al. 2012 | Prevalence of pain in nursing home residents with various cognitive functions | Cross-sectional | 13 | 436 |
[57] | Palm et al. 2013 | Evaluation of the provision of dementia care and identification of resident- and facility-related factors associated with quality of life and behavior | Longitudinal | N/A | N/A |
[52] | Palm et al. 2015 | Comparison of case conferences between dementia-specialized versus traditional care units | Cross-sectional | 51 | 888 |
[67] | Riedel et al. 2013 | Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease, associated dementia and depression in Dresden | Cross-sectional | 36 | 195 |
[24] | Schäufele et al. 2013 | Prevalence of dementia and provision of dementia care in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 58 | 4481 |
[65] | Schuler et al. 2007 | Validation study of the “Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale” (PAINAD-G) in nursing home residents | Cross-sectional | 8 | 99 |
[39] | Schumacher et al. 1997 | Prevalence of depression and CI in nursing home residents | Cross-sectional | 3 | 380 |
[23] | Seidl et al. 2007 | Prevalence of non-cognitive symptoms and psychopharmacological treatment in nursing home residents with dementia | Cross-sectional | N/A | 145 |
[64] | Seidl et al. 2009 | Comparison of neurological soft signs of residents with AD with residents without cognitive impairments | Cross-sectional | N/A | 120 |
[63] | Seidl et al. 2011 | Description of autobiographical memory deficits in residents with dementia | Cross-sectional | N/A | 239 |
[84] | Theison et al. 2009 | Association of agitation in the morning and depression | Cross-sectional | 3 | 110 |
[73] | Weyerer et al. 1990 | Validation of the Brief-Assessment-Interview | Cross-sectional | 1 | 32 |
[71] | Weyerer et al. 1995 | Prevalence of dementia and depression in nursing home residents from Mannheim and Camden | Cross-sectional | 12 | 542 |
[56] | Weyerer et al. 2004 | Comparison of residents from day-care centers and nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 47 | 1644 |
[42] | Weyerer et al. 2005 | Evaluation of special and traditional dementia care in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 31 | 1644 |
[43] | Weyerer et al. 2010 | Evaluation of special and traditional dementia care in nursing homes | Cross-sectional | 31 | 1644 |
[90] | Wubker et al. 2015 | Comparison of costs for PwD receiving home care versus nursing home care in 8 European countries | Cross-sectional | N/A | 76 |
[40] | Wulff et al. 2012 | Description of perceived autonomy of nursing home residents with and without CI | Cross-sectional | 40 | 560 |
[93] | Zenthofer et al. 2014 | Comparison of oral hygiene and health status of nursing home residents with and without dementia. | Cross-sectional | N/A | 93 |
Qualitative studies | |||||
[55] | Bär et al. 2003 | Identification of characteristic situations accompanied by positive emotions | Qualitative | N/A | 29 |
[60] | Becker et al. 2006 | Identification and cross-validation of patterns of competence in nursing home residents. | Qualitative | N/A | 362 |
[92] | Nordheim et al. 2015 | Evaluation of the use of tablet PCs in PwD in NH | Qualitative | 1 | 14 |
Methods to identify the study population residents with dementia
-
In 17 articles, a study diagnosis of dementia was used to determine the participant sample (Table 2). The diagnosis was newly assessed either in all residents or in residents with a diagnosis that had previously been documented.Table 2Overview of studies that determine study participants with dementia based on a study diagnosisPublicationsMethod of sample determinationDefinition and diagnostic criteria used for (new) dementia diagnosisScreenings performedQualification and training of professionals performing screenings/diagnostics[22]Diagnostics performed for every resident with an existing dementia diagnosis▪ Clinical examination▪ Semi-standardized interview and neuropsychological testing according to ICD-10 criteria▪ Consolidation of existing diagnostic findings▪ NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for diagnosis of AD▪ Consensus criteria for frontotemporal dementia▪ Petersen criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI)a▪ NINDS-AIREN for vascular dementiaMMSE, CDR, Behave-AD, BPRS, HDRS 17, B-ADLDiagnosis: Physician with experience in geriatric psychiatry[23]Diagnostics performed by physicians from the research team for every resident fulfilling one of the criteria:▪ Presence of dementia diagnosis in the nursing records▪ Resident appears forgetful▪ Resident has problems with orientation within the NH▪ NINCDS-ADRDA criteria on the basis of clinical examination, existing assessments of status and progress, existing diagnostic findings (technical investigations)▪ Dementia was classified into different types: AD, vascular dementia, mixed type, frontotemporal dementiaMMSE, GDS, Clock Drawing Test, CERAD entire battery, BAGI, AES, NPIScreening instruments and diagnosis: Experienced geriatric psychiatrist with formal training in the administration and scoring of the respective instruments.[60][61][62][63][64][65][66]Diagnostics performed for a random sample of nursing home residents▪ SIDAM-interview for the assessment of cognitive function; in case of severe physical impairment CDR▪ Diagnosis of etiological subtype based on the findings from the SIDAM-interview▪ Diagnosis discussed in an expert conference of physicians and psychologists according to DSM-III-RSIDAM, MMSE or CDRDiagnosis: Physicians and psychologist who received training in conducting structured interviews[67]Diagnostics performed for a random sample of residents with Parkinson’s disease▪ Diagnosis assessed according to DSM-IV-TR criteria using the SIDAM-interview, clinical examination, medical historySIDAM, MMSE, PANDA (subsample)Screening instruments and diagnosis: Study monitor with a medical education[69]Diagnostics in the study was performed for all nursing home residents.▪ No definition or diagnostic criteria stated▪ Diagnosis assessed using the CDR (≥ 1)MMSE, BAS-DEM, CDR, DSS, BAIDiagnosis: Trained clinical psychologistScreening (DSS): Licensed geriatric nurses with frequent contact with the residents during the previous 4 weeks[70]Diagnostics in the study was performed for every consenting resident.▪ No definition or diagnostic criteria stated▪ Diagnosis assessed using the CDR (≥ 1)CDR, MMSE, Barthel-IndexDiagnosis: Determined in multidisciplinary consensus conferences held by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and health and nursing specialists.Screening instruments: Not specified[71]Diagnostics performed for all NH residents▪ No definition or diagnostic criteria stated▪ Diagnosis assessed using the BAI (3-8 = mild to severe dementia)BAIInterviews performed by trained NH staff with experience in clinical psychology and psychiatry[72]Diagnostics performed for NH residents able to be interviewed▪ Assessment of diagnosis according to Feighner-criteria▪ Dementia severity cutoff value (MMSE ≤ 23 minimum mild dementia)AKT, BAI,Diagnosis: NH manager experienced in psychiatry[73]Diagnostics in the study performed for a non-defined sample of NH residents▪ Diagnosis assessed according to the Feighner criteria and compared with a diagnosis assessed with the BAI (BAI 0-2 = most likely no dementia, 3-7 = mild to moderate dementia, 8 = severe dementia)BAIDiagnosis (Feighner criteria): experienced NH manager[75]Diagnostics for organic psycho syndrome (OPS) (dementia) performed in a non-defined sample of NH residents▪ Differentiation of OPS severity based on an assessment of cerebral dysfunction and changes in personalityNot specifiedNot specified[68]Diagnostics in the study performed for all included participants▪ SIDAM interview was conducted▪ Diagnosis was based on a consensus between study interviewers and an experienced geriatrician or geriatric psychiatrist according to DSM IV for Alzheimer or ICD-10 or DSM III R criteria for multi-infarct dementia and other etiology▪ Diagnostic criteria: objective deficits in memory and another cognitive domain, impairment in activities of daily living▪ Classification of dementia was based on the CDR (≤ 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe)▪ Assessed data were combined into simple and weighted count scoresSIDAM, CDR, MMSE, Barthel-Index for ADL impairment, IADL impairment scale, 28 chronic conditionsTrained physicians or psychologists conducted interviews with participants and their caregivers.
-
In 6 articles, the recorded diagnosis was the criterion for determining the sample participants (Table 3). In the study by Graessel et al. [41], attending physicians confirmed the recorded diagnosis; in the study by Weyerer et al. [42, 43], the diagnosis was used as an indirect inclusion criterion. In this study, the dementia diagnosis was an admission criterion for the care unit that participated in the study (Dementia Special Care Unit). This study does not report whether the diagnosis was confirmed. In 3 articles, the diagnosis was obtained from the residents’ records [44‐46]; 1 article reported that the dementia type was evaluated according to the ICD classification (as recorded), and the dementia severity evaluation was guideline-based and performed according to the recommended MMSE cutoff values [46].Table 3Overview of studies that defined study participants with dementia based on a recorded diagnosisPublicationsMethod of sample determinationDefinition and diagnostic criteria used for (new) dementia diagnosisScreenings performedQualification and training of professionals performing screenings/diagnostics[41]A suspected dementia diagnosis (by nursing staff) or existing dementia diagnosis confirmed by the attending GP▪ ICD-10 criteria▪ Dementia severity stages: MMSE: 0-9 severe, 10-17 moderate, ≥ 18 mild dementiaMMSE, GDS, NOSGER, E-ADL,Not specified[42]Diagnostics not performed in the study, but the admission criteria for the living unit were used as inclusion criteria (dementia diagnosis, minimum of care level 2, behavioral problems according to the CMAI, and mobility)▪ No information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosisDSSProfessional nursing staff, training of raters is not specified[43][44]Dementia diagnosis was derived from the interRAI LTCF assessment in the records▪ No information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosisInterRAI (LTCF)Not specified[45]Residents with a medical diagnosis of dementia were included.▪ No information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosisGDSMeasures were assessed by nurses.[46]Residents with a medical diagnosis of dementia were included.▪ Assessment of the dementia type according to the ICD-10 classification (as recorded)▪ Assessment of dementia severity according to the German guideline for dementia and recommended MMSE cutoff values (0-9 severe, 10-19 moderate, 20-26 mild)MMSENot specified.
-
In 20 articles, the recorded medical diagnosis of dementia was used as a criterion to determine the sample participants, but it was combined with the results of a cognitive screening measure (Table 4). In 19 studies, a resident was included if the result of the MMSE also indicated CI; 1 study included a resident if a diagnosis was recorded and the result of a screening using the Functional Assessment Staging Test (FAST) indicated dementia [47]. One study used a stepwise approach [48‐51]: in the case of an incongruity between the diagnosis and the MMSE result, additional diagnostics were performed to decide whether a resident fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Table 4Overview of studies that defined study participants with dementia based on a recorded diagnosis and additional cognitive screeningsPublicationsMethod of sample determinationDefinition and criteria used for (existing) dementia diagnosticsScreenings performed to define and describe dementiaQualification and training of professionals involved[48]Residents with dementia were identified using a mixed stepwise approach:1st step: Multiple combined inclusion criteria:▪ Presence of dementia diagnosis in the nursing and medical records and▪ MMSE ≤ 242nd step: In case of incongruity of diagnosis and MMSE result, dementia diagnostics were performed, diagnostics were also performed for residents with a suspected dementia but no diagnosis▪ Exclusion criteria: Presence of other neurological/psychiatric diseases that could explain patients’ decline in cognitive function (schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, mental retardation)▪ Existing dementia diagnosis performed in 70 % by GPs and 30 % by medical specialists and according to ICD-10 criteria▪ An ICD-10/DSM-IV conform study diagnosis was assessed based on clinical investigation and MMSE▪ Dementia severity stages: MMSE: 0-9 severe/very severe; 10-18 moderate; 19-24 = mild dementiaMMSE, FAST, AES, NPIDiagnosis: Physician from the research team who was experienced in geriatric psychiatryScreening instruments: Specifically trained raters, including medical students with an advanced academic degree and physicians experienced in geriatric psychiatry[49][50]a[51][81]b[76]Residents with dementia were identified using two combined inclusion criteria:▪ Confirmed presence of primary degenerative dementia and▪ MMSE < 24▪ Exclusion criteria: presence of other neurological/psychiatric diseases that could explain patients’ decline in cognitive function (such as addiction, major depression, or schizophrenia), high nursing care needs, blindness, deafness▪ Dementia diagnosis confirmed according to ICD-10 (F00, F03, or G30), exclusion of vascular (F01) and secondary (F02) dementia▪ Dementia severity stages: MMSE: 0-9 severe; 10-17 moderate; 18-23 mild dementiaMMSE, ADAS (cognitive subscale), NOSGER (subscale mood), E-ADLDiagnosis: confirmed by the attending physicianScreening instruments: Psychology students in their final year who had received training[77][78][79][80]Residents with dementia were identified using two combined inclusion criteria:▪ Presence of a dementia diagnosis; and▪ MMSE < 24, GDS stadium 4, 5 or 6▪ Exclusion criteria: presence of other neurological/psychiatric diseases that could explain patients’ decline in cognitive function (such as addiction, major depression, or schizophrenia)Dementia diagnosis according to ICD-10 in the doctoral recordsMMSE, GDS, ADAS (cognitive subscale), NOSGER (subscale mood), E-ADLNot specified[82]Residents with dementia were identified using 2 combined inclusion criteria:▪ Existing diagnosis of dementia and▪ MMSE ≤ 24▪ Exclusion criteria: Korsakoff’s syndrome or CI caused by diseases other than dementiaNo specified information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosisMMSE, CDR, AESNot specified[83]Residents with dementia were identified using 2 combined inclusion criteria:▪ Admission criteria to the living unit were used as inclusion criteria (presence of a dementia diagnosis) and▪ MMSE < 18No specified information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosisMMSE, NOSGER, GDSNot specified[84]Residents with dementia were identified using two combined criteria:▪ Presence of a dementia diagnosis; and▪ MMSE ≤ 27 and DemTect (scores of 6-8) for residents with a MMSE score between 24-27▪ No specified information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosis▪ Dementia severity stages: MMSE: ≤ 10 severely demented; 11-19 moderately demented, 20-27 mild dementiaMMSE, DemTectNot specified[85]Residents with dementia were identified using 2 combined criteria:▪ S-MMSE-Score ≤ 24▪ Exclusion criteria: primary psychiatric diagnosis or Korsakov’s syndrome▪ No specified information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing diagnosis▪ Different dementia severity stages were usedMMSE, NPI, Katz-IndexFormal diagnosis of dementia as determined by a healthcare professional (physician, psychiatrist, neurologist, geriatrician, general practitioner)[86][87][88][89][90][47](Study Protocol)Residents with dementia were identified using 2 combined criteria.▪ Medical diagnosis of dementia▪ FAST > 1▪ No specified information given on the diagnostic procedure of the existing DiagnosisFAST, NPI, PSMS▪ Data were assessed by trained study assistants who interview two caregivers simultaneously▪ Study assistants (mainly students) undergo a 2-day training on the use of the questionnaires and receive a manual▪ The first data collection was assisted by senior and junior researchers
-
In 10 articles, residents with dementia were identified by 1 screening or a combination of 2 screenings (Table 5). In these studies, an existing diagnosis was recorded, but it was not used as the inclusion criterion. Palm et al. [52] used the place of residence in a Dementia Special Care Unit as an inclusion criteria as well as the results of a cognitive screening to define their sample. One article reported exclusion criteria that were used to differentiate dementia from other psychiatric disorders [53].Table 5Overview of studies that defined study participants with dementia based on cognitive screeningsPublicationsMethod of sample determinationInformation about dementia diagnosisScreenings performed to define and describe dementiaQualification and training of professionals involved[108][53]a[111][107]Residents with dementia were identified using one criteria▪ FAST ≥ 2▪ Exclusion criteria: documented diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disordersExisting diagnosis of dementia recorded but not used as an inclusion criteriaMMSEa, FAST, NPI, PSMSScreening instruments: Caregivers who were familiar with the resident were interviewed from a trained external research assistant (registered nurses and students in health care study programs)[52]Residents were included using 2 criteria:▪ Place of residence is a Dementia Special Care Unit▪ Cognitive impairment according to DSS > 2Existing diagnosis of dementia recorded but not used as an inclusion criteriaDSS, NPI, PSMSScreening instruments were completed by nurses familiar with the resident; questionnaires were accompanied by a manual to support assessment[109]b[110]Residents with dementia were identified using 2 combined criteria▪ Dementia according to DSS; and▪ Mobile according to Rivermead Mobility IndexExisting diagnosis of dementia recorded but not used as an inclusion criteria; no information is given on existing diagnosisDSS, NPI, Barthel-IndexScreening instrument: registered nurses who are familiar with the resident (primary nurse)[91]Residents with dementia were identified based on the MMSE screening < 24No information given on existing diagnosisMMSE, Barthel-IndexNot specified[92]Residents with dementia were identified based on the MMSE screening < 24▪ Dementia severity stages: MMSE ≤ 10 severe, 11-17 moderate, ≥ 18 mildNo information given on existing diagnosisMMSE, Barthel-IndexNot specified[93]Residents with dementia were identified based on the MMSE screening▪ MMSE cutoff ≤ 20No information given on existing diagnosisMMSEMMSE was performed by three psychologists.
-
The 3 studies (4 articles) that investigated residents with CI exclusively used screenings to identify their study participants (Table 6).Table 6Overview of studies that investigated study participants with cognitive impairmentPublicationsMethod of sample determinationScreenings performed to define and describe CIQualification and training of professionals involved[37]Assessment of CI performed for a random sample of NH residents.MMSE, Barthel-IndexData were collected through face-to-face interviews by trained research personnel[40]▪ MMSE: 0-17 = severe CI; 18-23 = moderate CI; 24-30 = no or mild CI[38]Assessment of CI was performed for NH residents > 65 years without verbal impairments.MMSETrained study assistants (licensed nurses or students in health care programs) who received a comprehensive training in using the MMSE▪ MMSE: 0-9 severe CI; 10-17 moderate CI; 18-30 = no/mild CI[39]Assessment of CI was performed for all residents of the participating NHs.MMSE, GDSNot specified▪ MMSE: < 15 severe CI, 16-20 relevant CI▪ GDS: 2-3 mild CI, 4-5 moderate CI, 6-7 severe CI
-
Seven publications could not be classified according to the 4 groups explained above (Table 7). In 4 of these publications, all of the residents from a participating nursing home or living unit were included in the study and investigated with respect to various indicators for dementia (dementia diagnosis in the records and results of cognitive screenings) [24, 54‐56]. In these studies, the sample was described, but participants were not selected or assigned based on these indicators. One article is a study protocol; the method to define residents with dementia was not determined, only the measurements that were intended to assess dementia [57]. In 2 publications [58, 59], the method to identify residents with dementia was not reported at all.Table 7Overview of studies that did not clearly define participants with dementiaPublicationsMethod of sample determinationInformation about dementia diagnosisScreenings performed to define and describe dementiaQualification and training of professionals involved[24]Every resident on the living unit enclosed in the study and described with respect to dementia-related characteristicsMedical diagnosis is derived from the medical records and coded according to ICD-10.Presence of dementia diagnosis in the nursing records, DSS (rating according to CDR: mild (CDR 1), severe (CDR 2), very severe (CDR 3)Screening instruments: Nurses who are familiar with the resident performed the ratings; oral and written instructions were provided by the research team[54]Every resident on the living unit included in the study and described with respect to dementia-related characteristicsNot specifiedGDS (> 1 beginning dementia, > 3 moderate dementia, > 5 severe dementia), MMSE, CERAD Verbal Fluency Test, CERAD Boston Naming testNot specified[55][56]Every resident on the living unit is enclosed in the study and described with respect to dementia-related characteristicsNo information is given on the diagnostic procedures of the existing diagnosis.Presence of dementia diagnosis in the nursing records, DSSScreening instruments: Professional nursing staff that were familiar with the resident[57] (Study protocol)Every resident on the living unit included in the study and described with respect to dementia-related characteristicsMedical diagnosis is derived from the nursing records.Presence of dementia diagnosis in the nursing records, DSS, FAST, MMSE as recorded in the nursing recordsScreening instruments: Nurses who are familiar with the residents and received training or supervision by a trained study coordinator (NH staff)[58]Procedure to identify residents with dementia not reportedNot specifiedNot specifiedNot specified[59]
Reporting about dementia diagnostics within the study
Reporting about dementia diagnostics prior to the study
Reporting about screening of cognitive impairment
Discussion
Case ascertainment strategy | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
Study diagnosis |
▪ The most valid inclusion criterion if recommended diagnostic procedures are followed |
▪ Requires intense resources
▪ Burdens the resident
▪ Is ethically questionable in the nursing home population
▪ Decreases willingness to participate |
Recorded diagnosis |
▪ Requires little resources
▪ Easy and quick to assess
▪ No burden for the resident
▪ Increases willingness to participate |
▪ Validity of the diagnosis cannot be assured
▪ Residents without a recorded diagnosis are systematically excluded
▪ Potential inclusion of false-positives
▪ Differential diagnosis is often missing |
Recorded diagnosis and screening result |
▪ Requires little resources
▪ Easy and quick to assess
▪ No burden for the resident if proxy-ratings are used
▪ Increases willingness to participate if the resident is not burdened with assessment procedures |
▪ Validity of the diagnosis cannot thoroughly be assured, but with the help of screening results false-positives can be detected and verified
▪ Residents without a recorded diagnosis are systematically excluded, unless residents with a probable diagnosis are also screened and a new diagnosis is evaluated
▪ Validity of the recorded diagnosis cannot be assured
▪ Differential diagnosis is often missing |
Screening result |
▪ Requires little resources
▪ Easy and quick to assess
▪ No burden for the resident if proxy-ratings are used
▪ Increases willingness to participate if the resident is not burdened with assessment procedures |
▪ The declaration of the existence of a dementia is not entirely possible
▪ Enables the selection of residents that are homogenous with regard to the screened condition but cannot prevent heterogeneity of other conditions |