Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-02T00:09:13.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing a Tool for Cognitive Screening in an Older Adult Psychiatric Rehabilitation Ward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Elle Newton*
Affiliation:
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Yathooshan Ramesh
Affiliation:
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Omar Carney
Affiliation:
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Aroop Bhattacharya
Affiliation:
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Ioana Popescu
Affiliation:
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Cognitive disorders, such as dementia, are a possible comorbidity and an important differential diagnosis to consider in older adults admitted to psychiatric wards with a functional disorder. Whilst cognitive assessment tools (e.g. ACE-III) and neuroimaging (e.g. MRI scans) are well established, there is significant variability in how and when they are used, which can result in inconsistences in their use. The aim was to identify the types of inconsistencies that may occur, and to provide a standardised framework in order for these tools to be used consistently on our functional rehabilitation ward.

Methods

This QIP retrospectively assessed data for all patients discharged over a 7-month period between October 2022 and May 2023, from an older adult functional rehabilitation ward. Clinical notes were reviewed to determine whether a cognitive assessment and neuroimaging had been considered, and if so, whether the assessment or investigation was appropriate and completed without delay. Correspondence to the GP or CMHT was reviewed to determine whether this had appropriate information about the relevant cognitive screening completed, and had included an appropriate follow-up plan. Data collected was checked for accuracy through screening by a second clinician, after which a consensus meeting was held to account for discrepancies.

Results

25 patients were discharged during the 7-month period. 52% were identified as having an issue or delay in their cognitive screening and correspondence; 32% had a delay in completing a cognitive assessment; 32% did not have an appropriate follow-up plan communicated in their discharge summary regarding future monitoring of their cognition; and 8% had a delay in considering or requesting neuroimaging.

Conclusion

Team discussion identified that staff uncertainty relating to the use of cognitive tools and neuroimaging was a significant contributing factor to the issues identified in our results. We subsequently delivered training using a flowchart for doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals on the ward, which included information about the benefits and disadvantages of different screening tools and imaging modalities, in order to assist selection of the most appropriate tools on a case-by-case basis. The flowchart included the need for MDT discussion and senior psychiatrist involvement, but aimed to improve team confidence in understanding the rationale for these decisions. Based on the results of our post-intervention data, we will consider adapting the training and flowchart delivered to meet the needs of other older adult services in the trust.

Type
3 Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.