Dementia Diagnosis, Treatment, and Care in Specialist Clinics in Two Scandinavian Countries: A Data Comparison between the Swedish Dementia Registry (SveDem) and the Danish Dementia Registry
Affiliations: [a] Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society (NVS), Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden | [b] Danish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark | [c] Department of Geriatric Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Correspondence:
[*]
Correspondence to: Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad, Karo-linska Institutet,
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences andSociety (NVS), Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Novum 5th Floor,14186 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: +46 8 58589397; Mobile: +46739302627; Fax: +46 8 58585470; sm.fereshtehnejad@ki.se
Abstract:
Background: Two dementia quality registries have been developed in Denmark and Sweden with the aim to assess quality of dementia care based on adherence to national guidelines.
Objective: To compare patient characteristics, diagnostics, treatment, and quality indicators of dementia care among patients referred to specialist units in Sweden and Denmark.
Methods: Data from the Swedish Dementia Registry (SveDem) and the Danish Dementia Registry were merged. Newly diagnosed dementia cases referred to memory clinics during 2007–2012 were included (19,629 Swedish and 6,576 Danish patients).
Results: The median duration between initial assessment and confirmed diagnosis was 56 and 57 days in Sweden and Denmark, respectively. Brain imaging using MRI was twice as common in Sweden. A diagnosis of dementia was established at an average MMSE of 21. An etiological diagnosis was concluded in 89.6% of the Swedish and 87.3% of the Danish cases. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) was the most common disorder (47.7% in Denmark and 36.6% in Sweden); however, more cases were diagnosed as mixed AD in Sweden (24.7% versus 10.6% ). More than 80% of patients with AD, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson’s disease with dementia were treated with anti-dementia drugs.
Conclusion: The targets of several quality indicators in both registries were met, such that structural brain imaging and MMSE were performed in >90% and an etiological diagnosis was concluded in >80% of the patients. However, there were also results of concern. The diagnosis of dementia was established at a mean MMSE of 21, which is already late in the course of most dementia disorders. A higher chance of vascular findings following the higher rate of MRI in Sweden may have resulted in more mixed AD diagnosis, which could be one explanation for diagnostic differences but also highlights the need to harmonize diagnostic criteria.
