Background: Person-centered care (PCC) is an important concept in many countries’ national guidelines and dementia plans. Key intervention categories, i.e., a taxonomy of person-centered (PC)-interventions, to provide person-centered dementia care, are difficult to identify from literature. Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify and categorize published PC-interventions into key intervention categories to guide the provision of person-centered dementia care. Methods: Conduct of this systematic review followed Cochrane guidelines. A search of the dimensions ‘Dementia’, ‘Person-Centered Care’, and ‘Intervention’ combined was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Study selection was based on 2-stage screening against eligibility criteria, limited to controlled study designs. Information about interventions and outcomes was extracted into an “Effects Table”. The identified PC-interventions were categorized in intervention categories to provide person-centered dementia care. Results: Searches identified 1,806 records. 19 studies were included. These covered a range of psychosocial interventions, oftentimes multi-component interventions, which followed heterogeneous approaches. Studies were conducted in long-term care/hospital settings. Nine key intervention categories were identified: social contact, physical activities, cognitive training, sensory enhancement, daily living assistance, life history oriented emotional support, training and support for professional caregivers, environmental adjustments, and care organization. Conclusion: Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. The heterogeneity made it challenging to identify a well-defined concept of PCC and common key intervention categories. An effectiveness-evaluation of “PC”-including “relationship-centered”-interventions may be valuable, to assess whether an explicit focus on relationships around PCC-interventions yields an added benefit. PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021225084.

Background: Low-value care (LvC) is defined as care unlikely to provide a benefit to the patient regarding the patient’s preferences, potential harms, costs, or available alternatives. Avoiding LvC and promoting recommended evidence-based treatments, referred to as high-value care (HvC), could improve patient-reported outcomes for people living with dementia (PwD). Objective: This study aims to determine the prevalence of LvC and HvC in dementia and the associations of LvC and HvC with patients’ quality of life and hospitalization. Methods: The analysis was based on data of the DelpHi trial and included 516 PwD. Dementia-specific guidelines, the “Choosing Wisely” campaign and the PRISCUS list were used to indicate LvC and HvC treatments, resulting in 347 LvC and HvC related recommendations. Of these, 77 recommendations (51 for LvC, 26 for HvC) were measured within the DelpHi-trial and finally used for this analysis. The association of LvC and HvC treatments with PwD health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and hospitalization was assessed using multiple regression models. Results: LvC was highly prevalent in PwD (31%). PwD receiving LvC had a significantly lower quality of life (b = –0.07; 95%CI –0.14––0.01) and were significantly more likely to be hospitalized (OR = 2.06; 95%CI 1.26–3.39). Different HvC treatments were associated with both positive and negative changes in HRQoL. Conclusion: LvC could cause adverse outcomes and should be identified as early as possible and tried to be replaced. Future research should examine innovative models of care or treatment pathways supporting the identification and replacement of LvC in dementia.

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD’s conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusion: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and the imposed lockdowns severely affected routine care in general and specialized physician practices.ObjectiveTo describe the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physician services provision and disease recognition in German physician practices and perceived causes for the observed changes.DesignObservational study based on medical record data and survey data of general practitioners and specialists' practices.Participants996 general practitioners (GPs) and 798 specialist practices, who documented 6.1 million treatment cases for medical record data analyses and 645 physicians for survey data analyses.Main measuresWithin the medical record data, consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions, and documented diagnoses were extracted for the pandemic (March 2020–September 2021) and compared to corresponding pre-pandemic months in 2019. The additional online survey was used to assess changes in practice management during the COVID-19 pandemic and physicians' perceived main causes of affected primary and specialized care provision.Main resultsHospital admissions (GPs: −22% vs. specialists: −16%), specialist referrals (−6 vs. −3%) and recognized diseases (−9 vs. −8%) significantly decreased over the pandemic. GPs consultations initially decreased (2020: −7%) but compensated at the end of 2021 (+3%), while specialists' consultation did not (−2%). Physicians saw changes in patient behavior, like appointment cancellation, as the main cause of the decrease. Contrary to this, they also mentioned substantial modifications of practice management, like reduced (nursing) home visits (41%) and opening hours (40%), suspended checkups (43%), and delayed consultations for high-risk patients (71%).ConclusionThe pandemic left its mark on primary and specialized healthcare provision and its utilization. Both patient behavior and organizational changes in practice management may have caused decreased and non-compensation of services. Evaluating the long-term effect on patient outcomes and identifying potential improvements are vital to better prepare for future pandemic waves.

Background Low-value medications (Lvm) provide little or no benefit to patients, may be harmful, and waste healthcare resources and costs. Although evidence from the literature indicates that Lvm is highly prevalent in dementia, evidence about the financial consequences of Lvm in dementia is limited. This study analyzed the association between receiving Lvm and healthcare costs from a public payers’ perspective. Methods This analysis is based on data of 516 community-dwelling people living with dementia (PwD). Fourteen Lvm were extracted from dementia-specific guidelines, the German equivalent of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and the PRISCUS list. Healthcare utilization was retrospectively assessed via face-to-face interviews with caregivers and monetarized by standardized unit costs. Associations between Lvm and healthcare costs were analyzed using multiple linear regression models. Results Every third patient ( n = 159, 31%) received Lvm. Low-value antiphlogistics, analgesics, anti-dementia drugs, sedatives and hypnotics, and antidepressants alone accounted for 77% of prescribed Lvm. PwD who received Lvm were significantly less cognitively impaired than those not receiving Lvm. Receiving Lvm was associated with higher medical care costs ( b = 2959 €; 95% CI 1136–4783; p = 0.001), particularly due to higher hospitalization ( b = 1911 €; 95% CI 376–3443; p = 0.015) and medication costs ( b = 905 €; 95% CI 454–1357; p < 0.001). Conclusion Lvm were prevalent, more likely occurring in the early stages of dementia, and cause financial harm for payers due to higher direct medical care costs. Further research is required to derive measures to prevent cost-driving Lvm in primary care, that is, implementing deprescribing interventions and moving health expenditures towards higher value resource use.