To explore the care and support received and wanted by United Kingdom (UK) South Asian and White British people affected by dementia and whether access to it is equitable.

Semi-structured interviews using a topic guide.

Eight memory clinics across four UK National Health Service Trusts; three in London and one in Leicester.

We purposefully recruited a maximum variation sample of people living with dementia from South Asian or White British backgrounds, their family carers, and memory clinic clinicians. We interviewed 62 participants including 13 people living with dementia, 24 family carers, and 25 clinicians.

We audio-recorded interviews, transcribed them, and analyzed them using reflexive thematic analysis.

People from either background were willing to accept needed care and wanted competence and communication from carers. South Asian people frequently discussed needing care from someone with a shared language, but language differences could also be an issue for White British people. Some clinicians thought South Asian people had a stronger preference to provide care within the family. We found that preferences for who provides care varied across families regardless of ethnicity. Those with more financial resources and English language have more options for care that meets their needs.

People of the same background make differing choices about care. Equitable access to care is impacted by people’s personal resources, and people from South Asian backgrounds may experience the double disadvantage of having fewer options for care that meets their needs and fewer resources to seek care elsewhere.

40% of people with dementia have disturbed sleep but there are currently no known effective treatments. Studies of sleep hygiene and light therapy have not been powered to indicate feasibility and acceptability and have shown 40–50% retention. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a six-session manualized evidence-based non-pharmacological therapy; Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives (DREAMS-START) for sleep disturbance in people with dementia.

We conducted a parallel, two-armed, single-blind randomized trial and randomized 2:1 to intervention: Treatment as Usual. Eligible participants had dementia and sleep disturbances (scoring ≥4 on one Sleep Disorders Inventory item) and a family carer and were recruited from two London memory services and Join Dementia Research. Participants wore an actiwatch for two weeks pre-randomization. Trained, clinically supervised psychology graduates delivered DREAMS-START to carers randomized to intervention; covering Understanding sleep and dementia; Making a plan (incorporating actiwatch information, light exposure using a light box); Daytime activity and routine; Difficult night-time behaviors; Taking care of your own (carer's) sleep; and What works? Strategies for the future. Carers kept their manual, light box, and relaxation recordings post-intervention. Outcome assessment was masked to allocation. The co-primary outcomes were feasibility (≥50% eligible people consenting to the study) and acceptability (≥75% of intervention group attending ≥4 intervention sessions).

In total, 63out of 95 (66%; 95% CI: 56–76%) eligible referrals consented between 04/08/2016 and 24/03/2017; 62 (65%; 95% CI: 55–75%) were randomized, and 37 out of 42 (88%; 95% CI: 75–96%) adhered to the intervention.

DREAM-START for sleep disorders in dementia is feasible and acceptable.

As the population ages, it is increasingly important to use effective short cognitive tests for suspected dementia. We aimed to review systematically brief cognitive tests for suspected dementia and report on their validation in different settings, to help clinicians choose rapid and appropriate tests.

Electronic search for face-to-face sensitive and specific cognitive tests for people with suspected dementia, taking ≤ 20 minutes, providing quantitative psychometric data.

22 tests fitted criteria. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) had good psychometric properties in primary care. In the secondary care settings, MMSE has considerable data but lacks sensitivity. 6-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT), Brief Alzheimer's Screen, HVLT, and 7 Minute Screen have good properties for detecting dementia but need further validation. Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment are effective to detect dementia with Parkinson's disease and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) is useful for all dementias when shorter tests are inconclusive. Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment scale (RUDAS) is useful when literacy is low. Tests such as Test for Early Detection of Dementia, Test Your Memory, Cognitive Assessment Screening Test (CAST) and the recently developed ACE-III show promise but need validation in different settings, populations, and dementia subtypes. Validation of tests such as 6CIT, Abbreviated Mental Test is also needed for dementia screening in acute hospital settings.

Practitioners should use tests as appropriate to the setting and individual patient. More validation of available tests is needed rather than development of new ones.

Depression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0–13 weeks and 0–39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.

There were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.

In terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.

To evaluate whether longitudinal insurer claims data allow reliable identification of elevated hospital surgical site infection (SSI) rates.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in US hospitals performing at least 80 procedures in 2005. Hospitals were assigned to deciles by using case mix–adjusted probabilities of having an SSI-related inpatient or outpatient claim code within 60 days of surgery. We then reviewed medical records of randomly selected patients to assess whether chart-confirmed SSI risk was higher in hospitals in the worst deciles compared with the best deciles.

Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG in these hospitals in 2005.

We evaluated 114,673 patients who underwent CABG in 671 hospitals. In the best decile, 7.8% (958/12,307) of patients had an SSI-related code, compared with 24.8% (2,747/11,068) in the worst decile (P<.001). Medical record review confirmed SSI in 40% (388/980) of those with SSI-related codes. In the best decile, the chart-confirmed annual SSI rate was 3.2%, compared with 9.4% in the worst decile, with an adjusted odds ratio of SSI of 2.7 (confidence interval, 2.2–3.3; P<.001) for CABG performed in a worst-decile hospital compared with a best-decile hospital.

Claims data can identify groups of hospitals with unusually high or low post-CABG SSI rates. Assessment of claims is more reproducible and efficient than current surveillance methods. This example of secondary use of routinely recorded electronic health information to assess quality of care can identify hospitals that may benefit from prevention programs.