BrainCheck - a very brief tool to detect incipient cognitive decline: optimized case-finding combining patient- and informant-based data.

INTRODUCTION Optimal identification of subtle cognitive impairment in the primary care setting requires a very brief tool combining (a) patients' subjective impairments, (b) cognitive testing, and (c) information from informants. The present study developed a new, very quick and easily administered case-finding tool combining these assessments ('BrainCheck') and tested the feasibility and validity of this instrument in two independent studies. METHODS We developed a case-finding tool comprised of patient-directed (a) questions about memory and depression and (b) clock drawing, and (c) the informant-directed 7-item version of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Feasibility study: 52 general practitioners rated the feasibility and acceptance of the patient-directed tool. Validation study: An independent group of 288 Memory Clinic patients (mean ± SD age = 76.6 ± 7.9, education = 12.0 ± 2.6; 53.8% female) with diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (n = 80), probable Alzheimer's disease (n = 185), or major depression (n = 23) and 126 demographically matched, cognitively healthy volunteer participants (age = 75.2 ± 8.8, education = 12.5 ± 2.7; 40% female) partook. All patient and healthy control participants were administered the patient-directed tool, and informants of 113 patient and 70 healthy control participants completed the very short IQCODE. RESULTS Feasibility study: General practitioners rated the patient-directed tool as highly feasible and acceptable. Validation study: A Classification and Regression Tree analysis generated an algorithm to categorize patient-directed data which resulted in a correct classification rate (CCR) of 81.2% (sensitivity = 83.0%, specificity = 79.4%). Critically, the CCR of the combined patient- and informant-directed instruments (BrainCheck) reached nearly 90% (that is 89.4%; sensitivity = 97.4%, specificity = 81.6%). CONCLUSION A new and very brief instrument for general practitioners, 'BrainCheck', combined three sources of information deemed critical for effective case-finding (that is, patients' subject impairments, cognitive testing, informant information) and resulted in a nearly 90% CCR. Thus, it provides a very efficient and valid tool to aid general practitioners in deciding whether patients with suspected cognitive impairments should be further evaluated or not ('watchful waiting').

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for VP design are available. Aims: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of VP design by learners. Methods: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (ii) The response process was explored in think-aloud pilot studies with medical students and in content analyses of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (iii) Internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and inter-rater reliability by generalizability analysis. Results: Content analysis was reasonably supported by the theoretical foundation and the VP expert team. The think-aloud studies and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. In the EFA, using 2547 student evaluations of a total of 78 VPs, a three-factor model showed a reasonable fit with the data. At least 200 student responses are needed to obtain a reliable evaluation of a VP on all three factors. Conclusion: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about VP design, provided that many responses per VP are available.

Patient safety in dialysis access: education and research.

Today, a growing activity to improve patient safety in all domains of medicine is reality. This chapter deals with patient safety research in general, but is also about strategies to implement this evidence in the daily clinical work treating patients on dialysis. Good clinical research practice has been well established for some years. In the domain of dialysis access, further basic, clinical, epidemiological and health service research will be important to further improve patient safety as a whole.

Patient safety in dialysis access

Not only are dialysis access creation and maintenance prone to complications, but patients suffering from end-stage renal disease and its comorbidities generally have a high risk of adverse events during their continuous treatment. Preventive strategies are key to avoid harm and to improve the outcome of the treatment of the growing number of patients with chronic kidney failure, especially as doctors and nurses are not always aware of the consequences of unsafe behavior. This publication is intended for health care professionals – nurses as well as doctors – and aims to raise the awareness of patient safety aspects, combining medical education with evidence-based medicine. After a general overview of the topic, an international panel of authors provides a diversified insight into important concepts and technical tricks essential to create and maintain a functional dialysis access. Contributions to Nephrology, Vol. 184