Consistency and applicability of different brief screen instrument of cognitive function in elderly population

Background Screening for cognitive impairment (CI) is often hampered by lack of consensus as to which screening instrument to use. The aim is to assess the consistence and applicability of different CI screening tools. Method In a cross-sectional study from October 2017 to September 2018 in 7 communities in Shanghai, China, elder (≧60) residential volunteers with no history of major cardiovascular diseases, cancers and other comorbidities known to affect cognitive functions were recruited. The participants underwent tests with 7 cognitive function screening instruments. Multivariate linear regressions were performed to test correlations between demographic characteristics, including gender, age, education, and marital status, with cognitive test scores. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score adjusted according to the correlation coefficients was used to detect CI with a cutoff of 24. Other cognitive function scores were compared between participants with and without CI. In addition, Pearson’s correlation test was used to detect association between different test scores. Results 172 participants with relatively low education levels were included. Age and education showed significant association with cognitive test scores. Using adjusted MMSE, 39.6% of participants were identified with CI, while the percentage was 87.2% when adjusted Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with cutoff of 26 was used. Analysis of “abnormal” test scores showed that MMSE had the highest percentage of valid data (98.8%). MoCA and Isaacs test of Verbal Fluency (VF) score had correlation with most the other scores, while MMSE only significantly associated with VF and MoCA. Conclusions MMSE may still present the most applicable tools for quick screen of cognitive functions, especially when environmental conditions may interfere with participants’ attention.

Perception of risk of adverse outcomes of older people: comparison between nursing homes, day centers and home care services

Purpose In Portugal, the three main kinds of care services available for older people are nursing homes, day centers and home care services. The use of these care services is mostly based on complex socioeconomic and functional criteria; however it is not clear if this placement corresponds to a higher/lower risk of adverse outcomes. The purposes of this paper are: to characterize clients of each type of service; to estimate the proportion of individuals at perceived risk of each adverse outcome according to type of service; to assess the ability of the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) to identify the risk profiles according to type of service. Design/methodology/approach The sample comprised individuals aged 65+ (n=224), receiving care at home, in day centers or in nursing homes. The identification of individuals at risk for three adverse outcomes (institutionalization, hospitalization and death) was performed using a short pre-screen instrument (RISC). Findings The RISC identified mental state issues as the unique factor that differentiated clients according the type of care services (χ2 (6, N=224)=20.96, p=0.002), with day center presenting the lowest percentage of mental health concerns and nursing home presenting the highest percentage (44.44 and 71.91 percent, respectively). Additionally, a gradient was found between perceived risk of adverse outcomes (institutionalization and hospitalization) and care of levels required. Originality/value The RISC can be used to discriminate people in different settings of care and can be helpful in the selection of groups at risk that will benefit more from available services.

Limits of the ‘Mini-Mental State’ as a screening test for dementia and delirium among hospital patients

SynopsisWith a psychiatrist's standardized clinical diagnosis as the criterion, the ‘Mini-Mental State’ Examination (MMSE) was 87% sensitive and 82% specific in detecting dementia and delirium among hospital patients on a general medical ward. The false positive ratio was 39% and the false negative ratio was 5 %. All false positives had less than 9 years of education; many were 60 years of age or older. Performance on specific MMSE items was related to education or age. These findings confirm the MMSE's value as a screen instrument for dementia and delirium when later, more intensive diagnostic enquiry is possible; they reinforce earlier suggestions that the MMSE alone cannot yield a diagnosis for these conditions.