Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background During COVID-19 lockdown measures, memory clinic patients reported worries for faster cognitive decline, due to loss of structure and feelings of loneliness and depression. We aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on rate of cognitive decline in a mixed memory clinic population, compared to matched historical controls. Methods We included patients who visited Alzheimer Center Amsterdam 6 months to 1 week before the first Dutch COVID-19 lockdown, and had a second visit 1 year later, after this lockdown period ( n  = 113; 66 ± 7 years old; 30% female; n  = 55 dementia, n  = 31 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n  = 18 subjective cognitive decline (SCD), n  = 9 postponed diagnosis). Historical controls (visit in 2016/2017 and second visit 1 year later ( n  = 640)) were matched 1:1 to lockdown patients by optimal Mahalanobis distance matching (both groups n  = 113). Groups were well matched. Differences between lockdown patients and historical controls over time in Mini-Mental State Examination, Trail Making Test part A and B, Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) immediate and delayed recall, and category fluency scores were analyzed using linear mixed effect models with random intercepts. We examined differences in rate of cognitive decline between whole groups, and after stratification in SCD, MCI, and dementia separately. Results Lockdown patients had a faster rate of memory decline compared to controls on both RAVLT immediate [ B (SE) =  − 2.62 (1.07), p  = 0.015] and delayed recall [ B (SE) =  − 1.07 (0.34), p  = 0.002]. Stratification by syndrome diagnosis showed that this effect was largely attributable to non-demented participants, as we observed faster memory decline during lockdown in SCD and MCI (RAVLT immediate [SCD: B (SE) =  − 6.85 (2.97), p  = 0.027; MCI: B (SE) =  − 6.14 (1.78), p  = 0.001] and delayed recall [SCD: B (SE) =  − 2.45 (1.11), p  = 0.035; MCI: B (SE) =  − 1.50 (0.51), p  = 0.005]), but not in dementia. Conclusion Memory clinic patients, specifically in pre-dementia stages, showed faster memory decline during COVID-19 lockdown, providing evidence that lockdown regulations had a deleterious effect on brain health. In individuals that may have been able to deal with accumulating, subclinical neuropathology under normal and structured circumstances, the additional stress of lockdown regulations may have acted as a “second hit,” resulting in less beneficial disease trajectory.

Background Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are prevalent in the early clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) according to proxy-based instruments. Little is known about which NPS clinicians report and whether their judgment aligns with proxy-based instruments. We used natural language processing (NLP) to classify NPS in electronic health records (EHRs) to estimate the reporting of NPS in symptomatic AD at the memory clinic according to clinicians. Next, we compared NPS as reported in EHRs and NPS reported by caregivers on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Methods Two academic memory clinic cohorts were used: the Amsterdam UMC ( n  = 3001) and the Erasmus MC ( n  = 646). Patients included in these cohorts had MCI, AD dementia, or mixed AD/VaD dementia. Ten trained clinicians annotated 13 types of NPS in a randomly selected training set of n  = 500 EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC cohort and in a test set of n  = 250 EHRs from the Erasmus MC cohort. For each NPS, a generalized linear classifier was trained and internally and externally validated. Prevalence estimates of NPS were adjusted for the imperfect sensitivity and specificity of each classifier. Intra-individual comparison of the NPS classified in EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI were conducted in a subsample (59%). Results Internal validation performance of the classifiers was excellent (AUC range: 0.81–0.91), but external validation performance decreased (AUC range: 0.51–0.93). NPS were prevalent in EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC, especially apathy (adjusted prevalence = 69.4%), anxiety (adjusted prevalence = 53.7%), aberrant motor behavior (adjusted prevalence = 47.5%), irritability (adjusted prevalence = 42.6%), and depression (adjusted prevalence = 38.5%). The ranking of NPS was similar for EHRs from the Erasmus MC, although not all classifiers obtained valid prevalence estimates due to low specificity. In both cohorts, there was minimal agreement between NPS classified in the EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI (all kappa coefficients < 0.28), with substantially more reports of NPS in EHRs than on NPI assessments. Conclusions NLP classifiers performed well in detecting a wide range of NPS in EHRs of patients with symptomatic AD visiting the memory clinic and showed that clinicians frequently reported NPS in these EHRs. Clinicians generally reported more NPS in EHRs than caregivers reported on the NPI.

INTRODUCTION We investigated whether mortality in memory clinic patients changed due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. METHODS We included patients from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort: (1) n = 923 pandemic patients (baseline visit: 2017–2018, follow‐up: until 2021), and (2) n = 830 historical control patients (baseline visit: 2015–2016, follow‐up: until 2019). Groups were well‐balanced. We compared mortality during pandemic with historical control patients using Cox regression. Differences in cause of death between groups were explored using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS Pandemic patients had a higher risk of mortality than historical control patients (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval CI] = 1.34 [1.05–1.70]). Stratified for syndrome diagnosis, the effect remained significant in dementia patients (HR [95% CI] = 1.35 [1.03–1.78]). Excluding patients who died of COVID‐19‐infection, the higher mortality risk in pandemic patients attenuated (HR [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.97–1.58]). Only the difference in cause of death between pandemic patients and historical control patients for death to COVID‐19‐infection (p = 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSION Memory clinic patients had increased mortality risk during COVID‐19 compared to historical control patients, attributable to dementia patients. Highlights We investigated if mortality rates in memory clinic patients changed due to COVID‐19 pandemic. We included patients along the cognitive continuum, including SCD, MCI, and dementia. We used a well‐balanced historical control group. Memory clinic patients had higher risk for mortality during COVID‐19 lockdown. Our results indicate that excess mortality is mainly caused by death to COVID‐19 infection.

Background Two healthcare innovations were successfully implemented using different implementation strategies. First, a Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery (MaDO) was implemented in four early adopter hospitals, using a hospital-tailored implementation strategy. Second, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme for colonic surgery was implemented in 33 Dutch hospitals, using a generic breakthrough implementation strategy. Both strategies resulted in a shorter hospital length of stay without a decrease in quality of care. Currently, it is unclear to what extent these innovative programmes and their results have been sustained three to five years following implementation. The aim of the sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI) study is to analyse sustainability and its determinants using two implementation cases. Methods This observational study uses a mixed methods approach. The study will be performed in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands, from November 2010. For both implementation cases, the programme aspects and the effects will be evaluated by means of a follow-up measurement in 160 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and 300 patients who underwent colonic surgery. A policy cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed prospectively for the Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery in 160 patients. To study determinants of sustainability key professionals in the multidisciplinary care processes and implementation change agents will be interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Discussion The concept of sustainability is not commonly studied in implementation science. The SUSHI study will provide insight in to what extent the short-term implementation benefits have been maintained and in the determinants of long-term continuation of programme activities.

Aims: Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is probably underrecognized. The goal of this study was to investigate initial complaints of both patients and their caregivers at first specialist referral. Also, we tried to assess whether misrecognition of symptoms contributed to diagnostic delay. Methods: The case notes of all patients diagnosed with FTLD at the VU University Medical Center, Alzheimer Center of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, since 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients of whom detailed information of first specialist referral was available were included. The diagnosis of FTLD was based on the clinical diagnostic criteria of Neary and Snowden, supported by ancillary investigations. Results: Forty-six patients with FTLD were included. Twenty-one patients had frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 17 semantic dementia (SD) and 8 progressive nonfluent aphasia (PA). The majority of the FTD patients presented without complaints or with somatic complaints and nearly a quarter of them expressed memory complaints. The presenting complaints of most of their caregivers differed from the patients’ complaints and often consisted of cognitive complaints. In SD and PA, language problems but also forgetfulness were presented. Misrecognition of the initial symptoms in some cases seemed to have contributed to diagnostic delay. Conclusion: Presenting complaints in FTLD can be misleading. In our cohort, memory complaints occurred relatively often. A multidisciplinary approach, including a structured behavioral interview, is important to recognize symptoms of FTLD.

Background It has been clearly shown that after elective colorectal surgery patients benefit from multimodal perioperative care programs. The Dutch Institute for Health Care Improvement started a breakthrough project to implement a multimodal perioperative care program of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This pre/post noncontrolled study evaluated the success of large-scale implementation of the ERAS program for elective colonic surgery using the breakthrough series. Methods A total of 33 hospitals participated in this breakthrough project during 2005–2009. Each hospital performed a retrospective chart review to gather information on traditionally treated patients (pre-ERAS group, n  = 1,451). During the subsequent year patients were treated according to the ERAS program (ERAS group, n  = 1 034). Outcomes were length of stay (LOS), functional recovery, adherence to the protocol, and determinants of reduced LOS. Results Median LOS decreased significantly from 9 to 6 days ( p  < 0.001). In the ERAS group, functional recovery was reached within 3 days. Adherence to the protocol elements was high during the preoperative and perioperative phases but slightly lower during the postoperative phase. Younger age, female sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I/II, and laparoscopic surgery were associated with decreased LOS. Care elements that positively influenced LOS were cessation of intravenous fluids and mobilization on postoperative day 1 and administration of laxatives postoperatively. Conclusions The ERAS program was successfully implemented in one-third of all Dutch hospitals using the breakthrough series. Participating hospitals reduced the LOS by a median 3 days and were able to improve their standard of care in elective colonic surgery.

Background A quality improvement collaborative is an intensive project involving a combination of implementation strategies applied in a limited “breakthrough” time window. After an implementation project, it is generally difficult to sustain its success. In the current study, sustainability was described as maintaining an implemented innovation and its benefits over a longer period of time after the implementation project has ended. The aim of the study was to explore potentially promising strategies for sustaining the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme in colonic surgery as perceived by professionals, three to six years after the hospital had successfully finished a quality improvement collaborative. Methods A qualitative case study was performed to identify promising strategies to sustain key outcome variables related to the ERAS programme in terms of adherence, time needed for functional recovery and hospital length of stay (LOS), as achieved immediately after implementation. Ten hospitals were selected which had successfully implemented the ERAS programme in colonic surgery (2006–2009), with success defined as a median LOS of 6 days or less and protocol adherence rates above 70%. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were held with eighteen key participants of the care process three to six years after implementation, starting with the project leader in every hospital. The interviews started by confronting them with the level of sustained implementation results. A direct content analysis with an inductive coding approach was used to identify promising strategies. The mean duration of the interviews was 37 minutes (min 26 minutes – max 51 minutes). Results The current study revealed strategies targeting professionals and the organisation. They comprised internal audit and feedback on outcomes, small-scale educational booster meetings, reminders, changing the physical structure of the organisation, changing the care process, making work agreements and delegating responsibility, and involving a coordinator. A multifaceted self-driven promising strategy was applied in most hospitals, and in most hospitals promising strategies were suggested to sustain the ERAS programme. Conclusions Joining a quality improvement collaborative may not be enough to achieve long-term normalisation of transformed care, and additional investments may be needed. The findings suggest that certain post-implementation strategies are valuable in sustaining implementation successes achieved after joining a quality improvement collaborative.

Abstract Introduction This study aims to assess patients' and caregivers' views on and experiences with (1) decisions about diagnostic testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and (2) receiving test results. Methods We conducted separate focus groups with patients from three hospitals who underwent diagnostic testing for AD ( N  = 11) and their caregivers ( N  = 11). Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using MaxQDA. Results Patients and caregivers preferred and perceived active involvement in decision making, but the decision to initiate diagnostic testing seems to be made before the clinician-patient encounter. Patients and caregivers indicate that decisions are driven by a strong need to explain the patient's symptoms. They missed information on why different diagnostic tests were used, what the results of these tests were, and to what extent these results were (ab)normal. Discussion The decision-making process around diagnostic testing for AD and the information provision before and after diagnostic testing could be improved.

Two healthcare innovations were successfully implemented using different implementation strategies. First, a Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery (MaDO) was implemented in four early adopter hospitals, using a hospital-tailored implementation strategy. Second, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme for colonic surgery was implemented in 33 Dutch hospitals, using a generic breakthrough implementation strategy. Both strategies resulted in a shorter hospital length of stay without a decrease in quality of care. Currently, it is unclear to what extent these innovative programmes and their results have been sustained three to five years following implementation. The aim of the sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI) study is to analyse sustainability and its determinants using two implementation cases. This observational study uses a mixed methods approach. The study will be performed in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands, from November 2010. For both implementation cases, the programme aspects and the effects will be evaluated by means of a follow-up measurement in 160 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and 300 patients who underwent colonic surgery. A policy cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed prospectively for the Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery in 160 patients. To study determinants of sustainability key professionals in the multidisciplinary care processes and implementation change agents will be interviewed using semi-structured interviews. The concept of sustainability is not commonly studied in implementation science. The SUSHI study will provide insight in to what extent the short-term implementation benefits have been maintained and in the determinants of long-term continuation of programme activities.

Aim: We investigated differences in the prevalence and severity of 10 neuropsychiatric and behavioral symptoms according to apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and dementia severity in Alzheimer disease (AD). Methods: Neuropsychiatric and behavioral symptoms of 110 AD patients were assessed using the Neuropsychatric Inventory. Dementia severity was assessed using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Results: There were 27 APOE-Ε4-negative patients, 65 heterozygous patients and 18 homozygous patients. There was a significant association between the number of APOE Ε4 alleles and prevalence and severity of neuropsychiatric and behavioral symptoms that was mainly attributable to delusions and agitation/aggression, which were more common and severer among homozygous APOE Ε4 carriers. In addition, the presence of hallucinations, anxiety, apathy and aberrant motor behavior increased with deteriorating MMSE score, independently of APOE Ε4 status. Conclusions: The present study showed that the APOE Ε4 genotype modifies neuropsychiatric and behavioral phenotype in AD. In particular, it was shown that delusions and agitation/aggression were more common and severer among homozygous APOE Ε4 carriers than among heterozygous or APOE-Ε4-negative patients.