4.4 Article

Developing a cognitive assessment toolkit for primary care: qualitative assessment of providers' needs and perceptions of usability in clinical practice

期刊

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09991-7

关键词

Dementia; Cognition; Memory; Aging; Assessment; Evaluation; Diagnosis; Referral

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early dementia is underdiagnosed in primary care, but the burden of dementia is expected to substantially increase. This study aims to understand primary care provider perceptions of implementing a cognitive assessment toolkit in primary care.
BackgroundBurden of dementia is expected to substantially increase. Early dementia is underdiagnosed in primary care. Given the benefits of active management of dementia, earlier detection in primary care is imperative. The aim of this study was to understand primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of implementing a cognitive assessment toolkit in primary care.MethodsPCPs in a large health system in the US were recruited to a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews. Interviews captured provider perceptions of options for implementing a cognitive assessment toolkit derived from the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) KAER (Kickstart, Assess, Evaluate, Refer) toolkit, including a workflow and adapted clinical tools. A content analysis approach distinguished themes and exemplary quotes.ResultsTen PCPs were interviewed. They found the toolkit useful, felt the term Kickstart was not specific to dementia care, and stressed that addressing cognitive evaluation would need to be easy to implement in a clinical workflow. Finally, providers knew many resources for referral but were unsure how to help patients navigate options.ConclusionsProviders stressed simplicity, ease, and efficiency for implementation of a cognitive assessment toolkit. Incorporating these findings into the development of clinical tools and workflows may increase cognitive evaluations conducted by PCPs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据