SPIKES-D: a proposal to adapt the SPIKES protocol to deliver the diagnosis of dementia

Persons living with dementia and caregivers' communication preferences for receiving a dementia diagnosis

Objective

As the number of individuals diagnosed with dementia increases, so does the need to understand the preferences of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and caregivers for how clinicians can deliver a dementia diagnosis effectively, which can be a difficult process. This study describes the diagnostic communication preferences of PLWD and caregivers.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured individual phone interviews with two groups: PLWD who were diagnosed in the past two years (n = 11) and family caregivers of PLWD (n = 19) living in Florida. PLWD and caregivers were not recruited/enrolled as dyads.

Results

The groups' communication preferences were largely similar. Data were analyzed thematically into five themes: communicate the diagnosis clearly, meet information needs, discuss PLWD/caregiver resources, prepare for continued care, and communicate to establish and maintain relationships.

Conclusion

Participants wanted clear communication, information, and support, but differed in some details (e.g. the language used to describe the diagnosis and the amount/type of desired information). Clinicians can apply general principles but will need to tailor them to individual preferences of PLWD and caregivers.

Innovation

Limited research has elicited PLWD and caregivers' communication preferences for receiving dementia diagnoses, particularly through an individualized data collection method allowing for richer descriptions and deeper understanding.

Best Practices for Communicating a Diagnosis of Dementia: Results of a Multi-Stakeholder Modified Delphi Consensus Process

Background and Objectives

Many individuals with dementia and their families report not receiving a dementia diagnosis. Previously published standards for delivering a dementia diagnosis are now more than 10 years old and were developed without patient and caregiver input. The objective of this study was to identify best practices for delivering a diagnosis of dementia using existing literature, involvement of diverse stakeholders, and consensus building through a formal modified Delphi approach.

Methods

We convened a multi-stakeholder working group including a patient, caregivers, Alzheimer's Association staff, and clinicians from diverse backgrounds. The panel used the American Academy of Neurology process for recommendation development, consisting of a half-day workshop and 3 rounds of anonymous modified Delphi voting to achieve consensus.

Results

The working group convened from May 2022 through January 2023. The group chose to focus statements on a limited number of best practices that can be applied across clinic types. Seven best practice statements achieved consensus after a maximum of 3 rounds of voting. These included the following: (1) Clinicians must show compassion and empathy when delivering a diagnosis of dementia (level A). During dementia diagnosis disclosure, clinicians should (2) ask regarding diagnosis preferences, (3) instill realistic hope, (4) provide practical strategies, (5) provide education and connections to high-quality resources, (6) connect caregivers to support resources, and (7) provide written summaries of the diagnoses, plan, and relevant resources (each level B).

Discussion

Clinicians need to customize discussion of a dementia diagnosis for individual patients and their caregivers. These 7 best practices provide a diagnosis communication framework that can be implemented across varied clinical settings. Additional strategies, such as using optimal general communication approaches, are also important for dementia diagnosis discussions. Thoughtful application of these best practices is particularly important when caring for individuals from underrepresented communities. Further improving communication regarding dementia diagnoses will require health system changes (e.g., for sufficient time), improved access to specialty dementia care, and clinician training for delivering difficult diagnoses. More research is needed to identify culturally sensitive approaches to discussing dementia diagnoses.

A neuropsychological feedback model for memory clinic trainees

Memory clinics that specialize in evaluating and treating cognitive decline in older adults are increasingly common and serve as an important training setting for neuropsychology practicum students, interns, and postdoctoral residents. Following a neuropsychological evaluation, trainees are tasked with sharing results, diagnoses, and treatment recommendations, a practice referred to as feedback. Despite the importance and complexity of providing feedback in this setting, no specific model of feedback delivery exists to guide trainees when learning this crucial skill within a memory clinic. The following article presents a feedback model for memory clinic trainees and details its development based on best practices available in the literature. The feedback model aims to promote trainees' confidence in their clinical skills and increase patient and visit partner understanding of evaluation results. It is also our hope that this model will advance the field of education within neuropsychology.

Clinician approaches to communicating a dementia diagnosis: An interview study

Background

Individuals with cognitive impairment and their families place a high value on receiving a dementia diagnosis, but clinician approaches vary. There is a need for research investigating experiences of giving and receiving dementia diagnoses. The current study aimed to investigate clinician approaches to giving dementia diagnoses as part of a larger study investigating patient, caregiver, and clinician experiences during the diagnosis encounter.

Method

Investigators conducted telephone interviews with Florida-based clinicians who give dementia diagnoses either rarely or commonly. Interviews employed a semi-structured interview guide querying communication practices used by clinicians when giving dementia diagnoses and how clinicians learned to give dementia diagnoses. Investigators used a descriptive qualitative design to conduct a thematic analysis of data.

Results

Fifteen Florida-based clinicians participated, representing diverse backgrounds related to gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, and practice setting. Participants reported using patient- and family-centered communication practices including checking patient understanding, communicating empathically, and involving family members. Some clinicians explicitly asked patients and/or family members about their preferences regarding diagnosis disclosure; many clinicians tailored their disclosure based on patient and family characteristics or reactions. Some clinicians reported using specific diagnoses, while others used general terms such as “memory disorder.” Clinicians reported positively framing information, including instilling hope, focusing on healthy behaviors, and discussing symptom management. Finally, clinicians provided patient/family education and arranged follow up. Clinicians reported learning approaches to dementia diagnosis disclosure through formal training and self-education.

Conclusions

Diverse Florida-based clinicians described dementia disclosure practices largely consistent with published guidance, but clinicians varied on approaches relating to soliciting patient disclosure preferences and terminology used. Clinicians caring for diverse populations described that cultural background affects the disclosure process, but more research is needed regarding this finding and best practices for individuals from different backgrounds.

Functional vision disorders in adults: a paradigm and nomenclature shift for ophthalmology

Vision loss with clinical findings that are incompatible with the symptoms and recognized neurological or ophthalmic conditions is a common presentation of patients to neurologists, ophthalmologists, and neuro-ophthalmologists. The accepted terminology to describe such patients has evolved over time, including functional visual disorder (FVD), non-organic vision loss, non-physiologic vision loss, functional vision loss, psychogenic, psychosomatic, and medically unexplained visual loss. Likewise, attitudes and recommended management options have changed over the years in the fields of psychiatry and neurology. FVD is a diagnosis of inclusion, and it is critical that the diagnosis be made and delivered efficiently and effectively to reduce patient and physician duress. We review the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM V) terminology and the prior literature on FVD and describe how the approaches to diagnosis and management have changed. We provide recommendations on the appropriate techniques and diagnostic approach for patients with FVD. We also propose a protocol for consistent and standardized discussion with the patient of the diagnosis of FVD. We believe that the adoption of FVD as both a paradigm and nomenclature shift in ophthalmology will improve patient care.