Self-administered gerocognitive examination (SAGE) aids early detection of cognitive impairment at primary care provider visits

D. Scharre, Nicole E. Vrettos, H. Nagaraja, R. Wexler, Aaron D. Clark, Christopher M. Nguyen
{"title":"Self-administered gerocognitive examination (SAGE) aids early detection of cognitive impairment at primary care provider visits","authors":"D. Scharre, Nicole E. Vrettos, H. Nagaraja, R. Wexler, Aaron D. Clark, Christopher M. Nguyen","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1353104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current estimates indicate that up to 50–75% of dementia cases are undiagnosed at an early stage when treatments are most effective. Conducting robust accurate cognitive assessments can be time-consuming for providers and difficult to incorporate into a time-limited Primary Care Provider (PCP) visit. We wanted to compare PCP visits with and without using the self-administered SAGE to determine differences in identification rates of new cognitive disorders.Three hundred patients aged 65–89 without diagnosed cognitive disorders completing a non-acute office visit were enrolled (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04063371). Two PCP offices conducted routine visits for 100 consecutive eligible patients each. One office used the SAGE in an additional 100 subjects and asked available informants about cognitive changes over the previous year. Chart reviews were conducted 60 days later. One-way analysis of variance and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the groups and outcomes.When SAGE was utilized, the PCP documented the detection of new cognitive conditions/concerns six times (9% versus 1.5%) as often (p = 0.003). The detection rate was nearly 4-fold for those with cognitively impaired SAGE scores (p = 0.034). Patients having impaired SAGE score and informant concerns were 15-fold as likely to have new cognitive conditions/concerns documented (p = 0.0007). Among providers using SAGE, 86% would recommend SAGE to colleagues.SAGE was easily incorporated into PCP visits and significantly increased identification of new cognitive conditions/concerns leading to new diagnoses, treatment, or management changes. The detection rate increased 15-fold for those with impaired SAGE scores combined with informant reports.","PeriodicalId":502302,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"64 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1353104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current estimates indicate that up to 50–75% of dementia cases are undiagnosed at an early stage when treatments are most effective. Conducting robust accurate cognitive assessments can be time-consuming for providers and difficult to incorporate into a time-limited Primary Care Provider (PCP) visit. We wanted to compare PCP visits with and without using the self-administered SAGE to determine differences in identification rates of new cognitive disorders.Three hundred patients aged 65–89 without diagnosed cognitive disorders completing a non-acute office visit were enrolled (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04063371). Two PCP offices conducted routine visits for 100 consecutive eligible patients each. One office used the SAGE in an additional 100 subjects and asked available informants about cognitive changes over the previous year. Chart reviews were conducted 60 days later. One-way analysis of variance and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the groups and outcomes.When SAGE was utilized, the PCP documented the detection of new cognitive conditions/concerns six times (9% versus 1.5%) as often (p = 0.003). The detection rate was nearly 4-fold for those with cognitively impaired SAGE scores (p = 0.034). Patients having impaired SAGE score and informant concerns were 15-fold as likely to have new cognitive conditions/concerns documented (p = 0.0007). Among providers using SAGE, 86% would recommend SAGE to colleagues.SAGE was easily incorporated into PCP visits and significantly increased identification of new cognitive conditions/concerns leading to new diagnoses, treatment, or management changes. The detection rate increased 15-fold for those with impaired SAGE scores combined with informant reports.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自控老年认知检查(SAGE)有助于在初级保健提供者就诊时及早发现认知功能障碍
目前的估计表明,高达 50-75% 的痴呆症病例在治疗最有效的早期阶段未得到诊断。对医疗服务提供者来说,进行可靠、准确的认知评估非常耗时,而且很难将其纳入有时间限制的初级保健医生 (PCP) 访问中。我们希望对使用和不使用自填式 SAGE 的初级保健医生就诊进行比较,以确定新认知障碍识别率的差异。300 名年龄在 65-89 岁之间、未确诊认知障碍、完成非急诊就诊的患者参与了这项研究(ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04063371)。两家初级保健医生诊所分别对 100 名连续符合条件的患者进行了常规访视。其中一家诊所在另外 100 名受试者中使用了 SAGE,并向可获得的信息提供者询问了过去一年的认知变化情况。60 天后进行病历审查。在使用 SAGE 的情况下,初级保健医生记录的新认知状况/疑虑的发现率是前者的六倍(9% 对 1.5%)(p = 0.003)。认知能力受损的 SAGE 得分者的发现率几乎是前者的 4 倍(p = 0.034)。SAGE 评分受损的患者和信息提供者的担忧被记录为新认知状况/担忧的可能性增加了 15 倍(p = 0.0007)。在使用 SAGE 的医疗服务提供者中,86% 的人会向同事推荐 SAGE。SAGE 很容易融入初级保健医生的诊疗过程中,并能显著提高新认知状况/疑虑的识别率,从而导致新的诊断、治疗或管理改变。SAGE 评分受损的患者结合线人报告的检出率提高了 15 倍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mycobacterium marinum hand infection: a case report and literature review Strengthening surgical healthcare research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa: impact of a research training programme in Nigeria Association between serum vitamin D and the risk of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes Maternal puerperal infection caused by Parabacteroides goldsteinii: a case report Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in a patient with polycystic kidney disease without underlying risk factors: a case report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1