Documentation of cognitive impairment screening amongst older hospitalised Australians: a prospective clinical record audit

• Published in: BMC geriatrics Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 1 - 672
• Main Authors: Rice, Radhika, Bryant, Jamie, Fisher, Rob Sanson
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 18.10.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Aged patients; Analysis; Audits; Care and treatment; Cognition & reasoning; Cognition disorders; Cognitive ability; Cognitive dysfunction; Cognitive impairment; Cognitive screening; Delirium; Dementia; Geriatrics; Health care; Hospital utilization; Hospitals; Length of stay; Medical records; Mixed methods research; Native peoples; Older people; Oncology; Patients; Prevention; Risk factors; Australia; England; Canada; Montreal Quebec Canada; United Kingdom > UK
• ISSN: 1471-2318; 1471-2318
• DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04394-z

Abstract Background Failure to detect cognitive impairment (CI) in hospitalised older inpatients has serious medical and legal implications, including for the implementation of care planning. This mixed methods study aimed to determine amongst hospital in-patients aged ≥ 65 years: (1) Rates of documentation of screening for CI, including the factors associated with completion of screening; (2) Rates of undocumented CI amongst patients who had not received screening during their admission; (3) Healthcare provider practices and barriers related to CI screening. Methods A mixed methods study incorporating a clinical audit and interviews with healthcare providers was conducted at one Australian public hospital. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 65 years and older and were admitted to a participating ward for a minimum of 48 h. Patient characteristics, whether CI screening had been documented, were extracted using a template. Patients who had not been screened for CI completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to determine cognitive status. Interviews were conducted with healthcare providers to understand practices and barriers to screening for CI. Results Of the 165 patients included, 34.5% (n = 57) had screening for CI documented for their current admission. Patients aged > 85 years and those with two or more admissions had greater odds of having CI screening documented. Among patients without CI screening documented, 72% (n = 78) were identified as cognitively impaired. While healthcare providers agreed CI screening was beneficial, they identified lack of time and poor knowledge as barriers to undertaking screening. Conclusions CI is frequently unrecognised in the hospital setting which is a missed opportunity for the provision of appropriate care. Future research should identify feasible and effective strategies to increase implementation of CI screening in hospitals.