Patient centred diagnosis of dementia: we must listen to patients’ wishes
BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5524 (Published 07 December 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j5524All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I do hope the advice of Doctors Devine and Gordon will be heeded and accepted.
Thank you.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I share Dr Devine's professional approach to patient-centred diagnosis of dementia (1)
This approach was enshrined by the Glasgow Declaration of 2014, which has been signed by 153 policy makers (including 84 MEPs) from 25 European countries along with 205 separate organisations (2)
The same day that I was reading Dr Devine's letter I was sent a communication about the "Edinburgh Consensus" (3). I was not aware of the Edinburgh Consensus until I received this communication which confirmed "the operationalisation of the Edinburgh Consensus which is on-going with NHS England and NHS Scotland." I have practised in NHS Scotland for 25 years, I am a specialist in dementia, and I was born In Edinburgh.
The "Edinburgh Consensus" provides this context: "This commentary discusses the implications of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease which seem likely to appear in the next few years and results from a meeting of British experts in neurodegenerative diseases in Edinburgh. The availability of such treatments would help change public and professional attitudes and accelerate engagement with the prodromal and preclinical populations who might benefit from them. However, this would require an updated understanding of Alzheimer’s disease, namely the important distinction between Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s dementia".
I worry about the potential for harm in conflating risk with disease, especially when understandings are still very much in development (4) The potential for over-medicalization and inverse care cannot be ignored.
Have we here further examples of divides? Between Glasgow, and its Declaration, and Edinburgh and its Consensus?
I fully support research into at-risk states for dementia. However I am concerned that this "consensus", which has been approved by the Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Association of British Neurologists, may not have sought to listen to any other voices than their own (5).
[this rapid-response is written in a personal capacity only]
References:
(1) Devine, M. Patient centred diagnosis of dementia: we must listen to patients' wishes. Published7 December 2017. BMJ, 2017;359;j5524
(2) Glasgow Declaration, 2014 - http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Policy-in-Practice2/Glasgow-Declaration-...
(3) The Edinburgh Consensus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5657110/pdf/13195_2017_Arti...
(4) Wilson and Jungner, World Health organisation, 1968, http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37650
(5) I was born in Edinburgh (this is a personal perspective to the "Edinburgh Consensus" by Dr Peter J. Gordon): https://holeousia.com/2017/12/11/i-was-born-in-edinburgh/
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Patient centred diagnosis of dementia: we must listen to patients’ wishes. EVEN AT CHRISTMAS
It is interesting but sad that BERGER ET AL have not yet commented on the half a dozen responses their article has elicited.
To me (perhaps because I am teetering on the brink of senility), Dr Devine and Dr Gordon have raised an important point.
Do the doctors, starting with the GPs and leading on to hospital doctors in every speciality, bother to listen carefully to elderly patients?
I recall, a generation ago, it was attempts sometimes made by social workers, district nurses, GPs and an occasional consultant to get a human being detained under Section 47 as amended.
At Christmas it seemed to happen more often.
Competing interests: No competing interests