The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded back in 2000 that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for dementia in older adults. Are there, though, populations that it may be helpful in, or should that change with the advent of the new amyloid antibodies? Should it? If so, how do we screen and who do we screen?

On this week’s podcast we talk with three experts in the field about screening for dementia. Anna Chodos is a geriatrician at UCSF and the Principal Investigator of Dementia Care Aware, a California-wide program to improve the detection of dementia in older adults who have Medi-Cal benefits. Joseph Gaugler is the Director of the Center for Healthy Aging and Innovation at the University of Minnesota, director of the BOLD Public Health Center of Excellence on Dementia Caregiving, and Editor-in-Chief of the Gerontologist. Lastly, Soo Borson is a self-described primary care leaning geriatric psychiatrist, developer of the Mini-Cog, and co-leads the CDC-funded BOLD Center on Early Detection of Dementia.

In addition to the questions asked above, we also cover the following topics with our guests:

• What is dementia screening?

• Who should get it if anyone?

• What should we use to screen individuals?

• What happens after they test positive?

And if you are interested in learning more about the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) Model for dementia, check out this podcast.

Emergency podcast! We’ve been asked by many people, mostly junior/mid career faculty, to quickly record a podcast on ageism and the elections. People are feeling conflicted. On the one hand, they have concerns about cognitive fitness of candidates for office. On the other hand, they worry about ageism. There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear. We need clear eyed thinking about this issue.

In today’s podcast, Louise Aronson, author of Elderhood, validates that this conflict between being concerned about both fitness for the job and alarmed about ageism is exactly the right place to be. We both cannot ignore that with advancing age the prevalence of cognitive impairment, frailty, and disability increase. At the same time, we can and should be alarmed at the rise in ageist language that equates aging with infirmity, and images of politicians racing walkers or a walker with the presidential seal. Ken Covinsky reminds us that we should not be making a diagnosis based on what we see on TV, and that if a patient’s daughter expressed a concern that their parent “wasn’t right,” we would conduct an in depth evaluation that might last an hour. Eric Widera reminds us of the history of the Goldwater Act created by the American Psychological Association in the 1960s which states that psychiatrists should refrain from diagnosing public figures, and the American Medical Association code of ethics which likewise discourages armchair diagnosis (rule established in 2017).

We frame today’s discussion around questions our listeners proposed in response to our Tweets, and are grateful for questions from Anand Iyer, Sandra Shi, Mike Wasserman, Ariela Orkaby, Karen Knops, Jeanette Leardi, Sarah McKiddy, Cecilia Poon, Colleen Christmas, and Kai Smith. We talk about positive aspects of aging, cognitive screening, the line between legitimate concerns and ageism, ableism, advice for a geriatrician asked to comment on TV, frailty and physical disability, images in the press, historical situations including , and an upper age limit for the Presidency, among other issues.

Of note, we talk about candidates from all parties today. We acknowledge concerns and speculation that others have raised about candidates across the political spectrum, current and former. We do not endorse or disclose our personal attitudes toward any particular candidate. Fitness for public office is a non-partisan issue that applies to all candidates for office, regardless of political party.

There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

Strong recommendation to also listen to this terrific podcast with another geriatrician all star, Jim Pacala, on MPR!

-@AlexSmithMD

In May we did a podcast on KidneyPal (the integration of palliative care in renal disease), which made us think, hmmm… one organ right next door is the liver. Maybe we should do a podcast on LiverPal? (or should we call it HepatoPal?)

On today’s podcast, we do that by inviting four palliative care leaders who are integrating palliative care into the care of those with liver disease: Kirsten Engel, Sarah Gillespie-Heyman, Brittany Waterman, and Amy Johnson.

It’s a jampacked 50 minutes, filled with pearls on taking care of patients with liver disease. We cover:

• How each of their LiverPal teams are structured

• Why and how LiverPal differ from general palliative care or other palliative care specialty areas (KidneyPal, PalliPulm, etc)

• How to prognosticate in liver disease and how they communicate this with patients

• How to think about expectations of transplants and limitations of it

• How to manage complications and symptoms ranging from ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, pain, itching, cramps, and depression

Also, if you want to take an ever deeper dive, check out our 2022 podcast on End Stage Liver Disease with Jen Lai, Ricky Shinall, Nneka Ufere, and Arpan Patel