Background: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is important because of the higher progression rate to dementia for MCI and when considering future disease-modifying drugs that will have treatment indications at the MCI stage. Objective: We examined if the two most widely-used cognitive tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and clock-drawing test (CDT), and a test of attention/executive function (AQT) accurately can differentiate MCI from SCD. Methods: We included 466 consecutively recruited non-demented patients with cognitive complaints from the BioFINDER study who had been referred to memory clinics, predominantly from primary care. They were classified as MCI ( n = 258) or SCD ( n = 208) after thorough neuropsychological assessments. The accuracy of MMSE, CDT, and AQT for identifying MCI was examined both in training and validation samples and in the whole population. Results: As a single test, MMSE had the highest accuracy (sensitivity 73%, specificity 60%). The best combination of two tests was MMSE < 27 points or AQT > 91 seconds (sensitivity 56%, specificity 78%), but in logistic regression models, their AUC (0.76) was not significantly better than MMSE alone (AUC 0.75). CDT and AQT performed significantly worse (AUC 0.71; p < 0.001–0.05); otherwise no differences were seen between any combination of two or three tests. Conclusion: Neither single nor combinations of tests could differentiate MCI from SCD with adequately high accuracy. There is a great need to further develop, validate, and implement accurate screening-tests for primary care to improve accurate identification of MCI among individuals that seek medical care due to cognitive symptoms.

Background: Strategies for the involvement of primary care in the management of patients with presumed or diagnosed dementia are heterogeneous across Europe. We wanted to explore attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) when managing dementia: (i) the most popular cognitive tests, (ii) who had the right to initiate or continue cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine treatment, and (iii) the relationship between the permissiveness of these rules/guidelines and PCP's approach in the dementia investigations and assessment. Methods: Key informant survey. Setting: Primary care practices across 25 European countries. Subjects: Four hundred forty-five PCPs responded to a self-administered questionnaire. Two-step cluster analysis was performed using characteristics of the informants and the responses to the survey. Main outcome measures: Two by two contingency tables with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the association between categorical variables. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables (age class, gender, and perceived prescription rules) with the PCPs’ attitude of “trying to establish a diagnosis of dementia on their own.” Results: Discrepancies between rules/guidelines and attitudes to dementia management was found in many countries. There was a strong association between the authorization to prescribe dementia drugs and pursuing dementia diagnostic work-up (odds ratio, 3.45; 95% CI 2.28–5.23). Conclusions: Differing regulations about who does what in dementia management seemed to affect PCP's engagement in dementia investigations and assessment. PCPs who were allowed to prescribe dementia drugs also claimed higher engagement in dementia work-up than PCPs who were not allowed to prescribe.

Social prescribing has been identified as a chance to take a holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing, especially for people with one or more long-term conditions. Its systemic implementation was a part of the recent United Kingdom National Health Service Long Term Plan. With a lifestyle medicine focus on equipping patients in tools necessary for self-care and self-management of their lifestyle-related health problems that coexists with the need for creating an environment supporting healthy choices, a social prescribing model seems to offer a promising strategy for advancing lifestyle medicine. This idea was discussed during a meeting hosted by the Polish Society of Lifestyle Medicine in collaboration with European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association, Polish Society of Young Family Doctors (“Młodzi Lekarze Rodzinni”), British Society of Lifestyle Medicine and European Lifestyle Medicine Council in June 2020. The aftermath—this position statement is an Authors’ attempt at summarizing the common ground for social prescribing and lifestyle medicine. It collects experiences of practitioners and researchers from five European countries as well as making recommendations for applying this model in Poland. Despite referring to local conditions, it might provide universal takeaway messages for any healthcare providers interested in combining social prescribing with lifestyle medicine practice.

Summary: Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication and information technologies to support the delivery of healthcare at a distance, guaranteeing patients healthcare by facilitating access where barriers exist; the COVID-19 pandemic has attracted worldwide interest in this field. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main pros and cons of telemedicine, which serve as the basis of the WONCA Europe Statement at the WHO Europe 70th Regional Meeting on 14 September 2020. Pros of telemedicine include virtual healthcare at home, where patients receive support in certain conditions without leaving their houses. During a pandemic, it can be adopted to limit physical human interaction. Unfortunately, it can negatively affect the quality of the doctor–patient relationship, the quality of the physical examination, and the quality of care. Telemedicine requires effective infrastructure and robust investments to be feasible and effective.

In oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision. Using a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP. The 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs’ decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48–0.59; ORs per country 0.11–1.78). Across countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.