RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The workup for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) can be difficult to coordinate, and determining appropriate patients for ventriculoperitoneal shunting can be challenging. Therefore, we hypothesized that implementing a formalized protocol can improve patient selection for a shunt. In conjunction with neurology and neurosurgery, we instituted a standardized means of assessing patients whose presentation is concerning for INPH and compared their workup with similar patients seen without the Protocol (i.e., preprotocol [PP]) regarding baseline characteristics, assessment, and outcomes. METHODS: Twenty-six PP patients were compared with 40 Protocol patients on measures, including baseline deficits, workup, neurosurgical evaluation, and response to shunt. RESULTS: Average age was similar between groups, and the percentage of patients who had a decline in gait, cognition, and/or incontinence was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Significantly more Protocol patients underwent high-volume lumbar puncture (HVLP; 97.5%; PP, 61.5%; p < 0.001) and received formalized gait assessment with the Gait Scale (90%; PP, 0%, p < 0.001) and standardized cognitive testing (95%; PP, 38.5%; p < 0.001). Significantly more Protocol patients had no improvement after HVLP (33.3%; PP, 6.25%; p < 0.045); subsequently, fewer got shunted (57.5%; PP, 84.6%; p < 0.030). More Protocol patients who were shunted reported gait improvement (100%; PP, 72.7%; p = 0.009), although there was no difference in cognition (59.2%; PP, 82.6%; p = 0.108) or incontinence (18.2%; PP, 39.1%; p = 0.189). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an INPH Protocol leads to standardized and more extensive assessment and better patient selection for and subsequent outcomes from shunting, specifically regarding gait.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spasticity is common in long-term care facilities; however, this often-disabling condition is largely underdiagnosed in this setting and therefore left untreated. This study aimed to test the ability of a three-question flowchart used at the bedside by primary care providers in the long-term care setting to identify residents in need of referral to a specialist for spasticity consultation. METHODS: All residents of a single long-term care facility were approached for participation in this cross-sectional, observational study. Spasticity diagnostic evaluations by a movement disorders specialist neurologist (reference standard) were compared with referral determinations made by two primary care providers [a primary care physician (PCP) and a nurse practitioner (NP)] using the simple flowchart. RESULTS: The analysis included 49 residents (80% male, age 78.2±9.0 years) who were evaluated by the reference standard neurologist and at least one primary care provider. The bedside referral tool demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity when used by the PCP (92% and 78%, respectively; AUC=0.84) and NP (80% and 53%, respectively; AUC=0.67). CONCLUSION: This simple tool may be useful for primary care providers to identify residents to be referred to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of spasticity. These results warrant further investigation of the potential utility of this screening tool across multiple long-term care facilities and various types of care providers.