Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

The Integrated Memory Care Clinic (IMCC) is a patient-centered medical home as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance directed by advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) caring for persons living with dementia (PLWD); physicians provide specialty consultation but do not direct care or care planning. The IMCC incorporates geriatric nursing, social work, and APRNs from neurology, gerontology, palliative care, and geriatric psychiatry. APRNs provide comprehensive, coordinated primary care for dementia, other chronic conditions, and minor acute illnesses. Partnering with PLWD and families and taking a palliative-oriented, dementia-informed medical home approach, the IMCC aims to reduce dementia burden. This study describes the first 12 months of IMCC's operation with 139 enrolled PLWD-caregiver dyads. All patients have a diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment; most have Alzheimer's disease (53.2%). Patients have an average of 5.8 medical conditions and 6.9 prescriptions; 38.1% have an advanced directive, a medical power of attorney, or a living will. Mean age is 78.6, 63.3% are female, and 30.9% are African American. Mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score is 12.6. Most require assistance in activities of daily living. Many display neuropsychiatric symptoms. The most prevalent comorbidities are hypertension, dyslipidemia, and depression. The rate of ambulatory-sensitive hospitalizations declined from 6.7% in December 2015 to less than 1% in May 2016. Caregivers were highly satisfied. We observed nonsignificant improvements in neuropsychiatric symptom severity (p=.07), caregiver distress (p=.69), and caregiver competence (p=.18). IMCC is a novel care model for PLWD and their caregivers and may be a more sustainable model than traditional primary care for this growing vulnerable population. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2401-2407, 2018.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30136290)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Clevenger, C. K., Cellar, J., Kovaleva, M., Medders, L., & Hepburn, K. (2018). Integrated Memory Care Clinic: Design, Implementation, and Initial Results. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15528

Vancouver

Clevenger CK, Cellar J, Kovaleva M, Medders L, Hepburn K. Integrated Memory Care Clinic: Design, Implementation, and Initial Results. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15528. PMID: 30136290.

BibTeX

@article{clevenger2018-30136290,
  author  = {Clevenger, C. K. and Cellar, J. and Kovaleva, M. and Medders, L. and Hepburn, K.},
  title   = {{Integrated Memory Care Clinic: Design, Implementation, and Initial Results}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.15528},
  pmid    = {30136290},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15528}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →