↓ Skip to main content

Screening Positive for Cognitive Impairment: Impact on Healthcare Utilization and Provider Action in Primary and Specialty Care Practices

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Screening Positive for Cognitive Impairment: Impact on Healthcare Utilization and Provider Action in Primary and Specialty Care Practices
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4606-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Rosenbloom, Terry R. Barclay, Soo Borson, Ann M. Werner, Lauren O. Erickson, Jean M. Crow, Kamakshi Lakshminarayan, Logan H. Stuck, Leah R. Hanson

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia, goes unrecognized in half of patients presenting to healthcare providers and is associated with increased acute care utilization. Routine cognitive screening of older adults in healthcare settings could improve rates of dementia diagnosis and patterns of healthcare utilization. To evaluate the impact of screening positive for cognitive impairment on provider action in primary and specialty care practices and patient healthcare utilization. Individuals asymptomatic for cognitive impairment completed cognitive screening with the Mini-Cog (MC). Outcomes included MC screen-positive rates, provider follow-up actions, and healthcare utilization for all participants over a period of 36 months (18 months prior to and following MC screening). Data were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). Healthcare provider interventions and healthcare utilization for screen-positive and -negative groups, before and after screening, were compared. Primary and specialty care patients (n = 787) aged ≥ 65 without history of cognitive impairment seen in HealthPartners, an integrated healthcare system in Minnesota and Western Wisconsin. In primary care and neurology practices combined, over the entire 36-month study window, individuals screening positive showed 32% higher rates of ED visits (p < 0.05) pre and post-screening compared to those screening negative. Screen positive also showed 39% higher rates of hospitalizations pre-screening (p < 0.05) and 58% higher rates post-screening (p < 0.01). While screen-detected cognitive impairment was associated with some relevant provider follow-up action in 32% of individuals, subsequent healthcare utilization did not change between the 18-month pre- and post-screening periods. Despite being associated with higher rates of healthcare utilization, screening positive on the MC led to a change in provider action in a minority of cases and did not reduce post-screening healthcare utilization. Screening for cognitive impairment alone is not sufficient to alter patterns of provider practice or patient healthcare utilization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 27 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Psychology 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,682,250
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,022
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,147
of 334,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#83
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.