Background:The ageing Arctic populations raise the need for work-up of cognitive function that reflects language and cultural understandings. Aim: To translate and evaluate tools for work-up of cognitive impairment in Greenland. Methods:Step A: An expert panel was established to select tools suitable for the work-up of cognitive impairment at three different settings in Greenland. Step B: Tools were translated in a multiple-step process of independent translations with back-translation and adaptations by two independent translators and two Greenlandic physicians.Step C: a testing and validation process of the tools at three locations: the national hospital in the capital city; regional hospital in a town; health care centre in a small town. Results: Tools selected were Mini-Cog and RUDAS. Participants for testing of tools were 43 of 61 invited, of which six had dementia. RUDAS and Mini-Cog scores were associated (p < 0.001). The smoothed AUC was 0.87 (95%-CI, 0.65-0.95) for Mini-Cog and 0.90 (95%-CI, 0.76-0.97) for RUDAS. The sensitivity of Mini-Cog with a cut-off at ≤3 was 83.3%, and specificity was 62.2%. For RUDAS with a cut-off at ≤23, these were 100% and 75.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Requested tools have been translated for assessing cognitive function in the native Arctic setting. Small town residents with a Mini-Cog score of 3 or lower should be referred to a regional hospital for RUDAS, and a score of 23 or less should cause referral to the national hospital for a full work-up of cognitive function.

Medicine use is a cornerstone in the treatment of many conditions, but ill-use has the potential to harm the patient. Thus, accurate medication information is critical for patient care and safety. To investigate the association between participants' reporting of using medicine daily, medicine list on Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and number of medicines handed out. Thirty-seven elderly Greenlanders were included, representing three different locations in Greenland. They were interviewed on daily medicine intake. Medicine list and pharmacy delivery were retrieved from the EMR. The difference between the number of drugs recorded in the EMR and the number delivered by pharmacy increased with number of drugs prescribed (p<0.0001). Thirty participants claimed that they were on daily medicine, and the EMR was in accordance with the delivered recorded by the pharmacy in just five participants. Eight had no registered medicine delivery. Four of seven, who claimed not being on daily medicine, were on daily medicine according to EMR. We found distinct discrepancies between EMR medicine list, medicine delivery by pharmacy and patient self-reported medicine use.