Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility and validity of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) as a performance-based cognitive screener that could be easily completed by nursing home staff. The current study examines the performance of the BIMS as part of the national testing of the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS 3.0) for Nursing Homes. METHODS: The BIMS was tested as part of the national MDS 3.0 evaluation study among 3822 residents scheduled for MDS 2.0 assessments. Residents were from 71 community nursing homes (NHs) in eight states. Residents were randomly included in a feasibility sample (n = 3258) and a validation sample (n = 418). Cognition was assessed with three instruments: the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), the MDS 2.0 Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS), and the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS). Trained research nurses administered the 3MS and BIMS to all subjects in the validation study. The CPS score was determined based on the MDS 2.0 completed by nursing home staff who had undergone additional training on cognitive testing. Standard cutoff scores on the 100-point 3MS were used as the gold standard for any cognitive impairment (<78) and for severe impairment (<48). Staff impressions were obtained from anonymous surveys. RESULTS: The BIMS was attempted and completed in 90% of the 3258 residents in the feasiblity sample. BIMS scores covered the full instrument range (0-15). In the validation sample, correlation with the criterion measure (3MS) was higher for BIMS (0.906, P < .0001) than for CPS (-0.739, P < .0001); P < .01 for difference. For identifying any impairment, a BIMS score of 12 had sensitivity = 0.83 and specificity = 0.91; for severe impairment, a BIMS score of 7 had sensitivity = 0.83 and specificity = 0.92. The area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, a measure of test accuracy, was higher for BIMS than for CPS for identifying any impairment (AUC = 0.930 and 0.824, respectively) and for identifying severe impairment (AUC = 0.960 and 0.857, respectively). Eighty-eight percent of survey respondents reported that the BIMS provided new insight into residents' cognitive abilities. The average time for completing the BIMS was 3.2 minutes. DISCUSSION: The BIMS, a short performance-based cognitive screener expressly designed to facilitate cognitive screening in MDS assessments, was completed in the majority of NH residents scheduled for MDS assessments in a large sample of NHs, demonstrating its feasibility. Compared with MDS 2.0 observational items, the BIMS performance-based assessment approach was more highly correlated with a criterion cognitive screening test and demonstrated greater accuracy. The majority of surveyed staff reported improved assessments with the new approach.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze whether types of providers and frequency of encounters are associated with higher quality of care within a coordinated dementia care management (CM) program for patients and caregivers. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of intervention-arm data from a dementia CM cluster-randomized trial, where intervention participants interacted with healthcare organization care managers (HOCMs), community agency care managers (CACMs), and/ or healthcare organization primary care providers (HOPCPs) over 18 months. METHODS: Encounters of 238 patient/caregivers (dyads) with HOCMs, CACMs, and HOPCPs were abstracted from care management electronic records. The quality domains of assessment, treatment, education/support, and safety were measured from medical record abstractions and caregiver surveys. Mean percentages of met quality indicators associated with exposures to each provider type and frequency were analyzed using multivariable regression, adjusting for participant characteristics and baseline quality. RESULTS: As anticipated, for all 4 domains, the mean percentage of met dementia quality indicators was 15.5 to 47.2 percentage points higher for dyads with HOCM--only exposure than for dyads with none (all P < .008); not anticipated were higher mean percentages with increasing combinations of provider-type exposure-up to 73.7 percentage points higher for safety (95% confidence interval 65.2%-82.1%) with exposure to all 3 provider types compared with no exposure. While greater frequency of HOCM-dyad encounters was associated with higher quality (P < .04), this was not so for other provider types. CONCLUSIONS: HOCMs' interactions with dyads was essential for dementia care quality improvement. Additional coordinated interactions with primary care and community agency staff yielded even higher quality.

This study examines the association of cognitive functioning with urban neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and racial/ethnic segregation for a U.S. national sample of persons in late middle age, a time in the life course when cognitive deficits begin to emerge. The key hypothesis is that effects of neighborhood on cognitive functioning are not uniform but are most pronounced among subgroups of the population defined by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Data are from the third wave of the Health and Retirement Survey for the birth cohort of 1931 to 1941, which was 55 to 65 years of age in 1996 (analytic N = 4,525), and the 1990 U.S. Census. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage has an especially large negative impact on cognitive functioning among persons who are themselves poor, an instance of compound disadvantage. These findings have policy implications supporting "upstream" interventions to enhance cognitive functioning, especially among those most adversely affected by neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage.

BACKGROUND: Frequent review and update of guidelines are necessary for them to remain current and useful for clinical practices. This second revision of the postdiagnostic management of Alzheimer's disease (AD) guideline by the California Workgroup was prompted by significant advances in knowledge about appropriate care management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches to treatment of the disease, accompanying behavioral problems, and functional decline. The focus remains explicitly on primary care, where the majority of it occurs for those with AD and other dementias. METHODS: In all, 40 experts in dementia care were recruited from a variety of disciplines across California. Four workgroups were created that reviewed recent research findings from a total of 569 publications since 2002. The revised Guideline incorporates 305 new references, including 11 state and federal laws, in addition to 78 references from the previous version. RESULTS: The Guideline is divided into four sections that address postdiagnostic management: (1) assessment, (2) treatment, (3) patient and family education and support, and (4) legal considerations associated with AD. Significant revisions and changes in each area and the underlying research to support the recommendations are presented in this article. New topics related to early stage and end-of-life were identified and recommendations were developed for these specific populations. CONCLUSIONS: The Guideline recommendations provide a framework to inform and improve medical care for AD by primary health care providers.

OBJECTIVE: Implement a memory impairment screening procedure for elderly Hispanic primary care patients, and analyze its yield and challenges to further triage and diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: Three hundred twenty nine Hispanic patients aged >/=60 years or proxy informants were enrolled from outpatient primary care clinics at an urban safety-net medical center. Patients were screened for memory impairment using the WHO-UCLA AVLT; for those without consent capacity, proxies were given the IQCODE. Bilingual research assistants conducted in-person or telephone screening. Age, gender, education, comorbidities, acculturation, overall health, access to care, and memory concerns were assessed as potential predictors of memory impairment. Based on identified implementation challenges, a multi-disciplinary stakeholder committee proposed revised approaches to increase diagnostic evaluation and sustainability. RESULTS: Of 677 eligible patients approached, 329 (49%) were screened, and 77 (23%) met criteria for memory impairment using the WHO-UCLA AVLT (N=60) or the IQCODE (N=17). Only male gender and higher comorbidity uniquely predicted memory impairment (ps<0.05). Few screen-positive patients declined further triage and evaluation, but a substantial proportion could not be subsequently contacted. Challenges to implementing a memory screening program included staff time and adequate clinic space for in-person screening; challenges to follow-up of positive screening results included inability to contact patients and lack of primary care continuity to facilitate further triage and referral. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-fourth of primary care Hispanic elders screened as memory-impaired, but few factors predicted positive screening. Stakeholder-guided adaptations are needed-particularly in resource-constrained settings-to overcome challenges to further diagnostic evaluation and referral.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the concurrent influence of depressive symptoms, medical conditions, and disabilities in activities of daily living (ADLs) on rates of decline in cognitive function of older Americans. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: National population based. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 6,476 adults born before 1924. MEASUREMENTS: Differences in cognitive function trajectories were determined according to prevalence and incidence of depressive symptoms, chronic diseases, and ADL disabilities. Cognitive performance was tested five times between 1993 and 2002 using a multifaceted inventory examined as a global measure (range 0-35, standard deviation (SD) 6.0) and word recall (range 0-20, SD 3.8) analyzed separately. RESULTS: Baseline prevalence of depressive symptoms, stroke, and ADL limitations were independently and strongly associated with lower baseline cognition scores but did not predict future cognitive decline. Each incident depressive symptom was independently associated with a 0.06-point lower (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.02-0.10) recall score, incident stroke with a 0.59-point lower total score (95% CI=0.20-0.98), each new basic ADL limitation with a 0.07-point lower recall score (95% CI=0.01-0.14) and a 0.16-point lower total score (95% CI=0.07-0.25), and each incident instrumental ADL limitation with a 0.20-point lower recall score (95% CI=0.10-0.30) and a 0.52-point lower total score (95% CI=0.37-0.67). CONCLUSION: Prevalent and incident depressive symptoms, stroke, and ADL disabilities contribute independently to poorer cognitive functioning in older Americans but do not appear to influence rates of future cognitive decline. Prevention, early identification, and aggressive treatment of these conditions may ameliorate the burdens of cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To compare primary care providers' (PCPs') perceptions about dementia and its care within their healthcare organization with perceptions of other common chronic conditions and to explore factors associated with differences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Three California healthcare organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-four PCPs. MEASUREMENTS: PCPs' views about primary care for dementia were analyzed and compared with views about care for heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and selected other conditions. Differences in views about conditions according to PCP type (internists, family physicians) were assessed. Multivariate analysis examined relationships between provider and practice characteristics and views about dementia care. RESULTS: More PCPs strongly agreed that older patients with dementia are difficult to manage (23.8%) than for heart disease (5.0%) or diabetes mellitus (6.3%); PCPs can improve quality of life for heart disease (58.9%) and diabetes mellitus (61.6%) than for dementia (30.9%); older patients should be routinely screened for heart disease (63.8%) and diabetes mellitus (67.7%) than dementia (55.5%); and their organizations have expertise/referral resources to manage diabetes mellitus (49.4%) and heart disease (51.8%) than dementia (21.1%). More PCPs reported almost effortless organizational care coordination for heart disease (13.0%) or diabetes mellitus (13.7%) than for dementia (5.6%), and a great deal or many opportunities for improvement in their ability to manage dementia (50.6%) than incontinence, depression, or hypertension (7.4-34.0%; all P<.05). Internists' views regarding dementia care were less optimistic than those of family physicians, but PCP type was unrelated to views on diabetes mellitus or heart disease. CONCLUSION: Improving primary care management of dementia should directly address PCP concerns about expertise and referral resources, difficulty of care provision, and PCP views about prospects for patient improvement.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a common geriatric syndrome. It is unclear how best to predict survival among dementia patients, which leaves clinicians, patients, and families uncertain as to how to proceed with medical decisions and reassessing goals. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE systematic review of studies that evaluated dementia prognosis and survival; 48 studies (cohort, cross-sectional, retrospective, and case-control studies) were included. RESULTS: Increased age, male gender, decreased functional status, and medical comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and malignancy were associated with a higher mortality rate in dementia patients. Patients' baseline education level showed no influence on survival. There was no consensus regarding the association among dementia type, baseline cognitive function, and neuropsychiatric symptoms with dementia prognosis. CONCLUSION: Despite much data, we lack a unifying guideline for dementia prognostication. Moving forward, the creation of a risk score for dementia could be helpful for patients and families in reassessing goals of care and possible enrollment in services such as hospice or palliative care.

This study used mixed-effects modeling of data from a national sample of 6,476 US adults born before 1924, who were tested 5 times between 1993 and 2002 on word recall, serial 7's, and other mental status items to determine demographic and socioeconomic predictors of trajectories of cognitive function in older Americans. Mean decline with aging in total cognition score (range, 0-35; standard deviation, 6.00) was 4.1 (0.68 standard deviations) per decade (95% confidence interval: 3.8, 4.4) and in recall score (range, 0-20; standard deviation, 3.84) was 2.3 (0.60 standard deviations) per decade (95% confidence interval: 2.1, 2.5). Older cohorts (compared with younger cohorts), women (compared with men), widows/widowers, and those never married (both compared with married individuals) declined faster, and non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites) and those in the bottom income quintile (compared with the top quintile) declined slower. Race and income differences in rates of decline were not sufficient to offset larger differences in baseline cognition scores. Educational level was not associated with rate of decline in cognition scores. The authors concluded that ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cognitive function in older Americans arise primarily from differences in peak cognitive performance achieved earlier in the life course and less from declines in later life.