Self-harm, including suicide, is common among prisoners. Staff attitudes and perceptions regarding self-harm may affect quality of care and patient safety.

To systematically review the experiences, perceptions and attitudes of staff in adult prisons regarding self-harm.

Systematic searches of EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were conducted, and supplemented by hand-searching and grey literature review, to identify relevant English-language articles published since the year 2000. Articles were screened by two authors and evaluated with standardised quality appraisal tools. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, whereas quantitative data were narratively synthesised because of high study heterogeneity.

Two thousand articles were identified, of which 32 were included, involving 6389 participants from five countries. Most studies were moderate (n = 15) or poor (n = 10) quality, and seven were rated as good quality. Staff frequently witnessed self-harm and described multiple perceived risk factors and causes of this. Perceptions that self-harm is ‘manipulative’ or ‘attention-seeking’ were associated with hostility toward prisoners and lower quality of care. Perceived barriers to preventing and managing self-harm included low staffing levels, prison environments and culture, poor staff confidence and insufficient training. The importance of multidisciplinary teamwork and building staff–prisoner relationships were highlighted. Staff occasionally experienced intense psychological reactions to self-harm, which resulted in adaptive or maladaptive coping that influenced their capacity to care.

There are mixed attitudes and perceptions toward self-harm among prison staff. Further training, support and resources are required to protect staff's well-being and improve self-harm prevention and management in prisons.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated widespread change across health and social care in England and Wales. A series of lockdowns and UK Government guidance designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 which emphasised social distancing and increased use of personal protective equipment led to changes such as increased use of remote consultation technologies and the closure of services deemed non-essential. This included many services for people with dementia and their families, such as day centres and dementia cafes.

To explore the changes made to services during the pandemic and the impact of these changes on the delivery of good post-diagnostic dementia support.

Professionals who had previously been recruited to the ongoing PriDem qualitative study were approached for follow up interview. Eighteen interviews with a total of 21 professionals working in health, social care and the third sector were conducted using telephone or video conferencing.

Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and checked prior to thematic analysis.

Key themes emerging from preliminary analysis of the data include: uncertainty about the future and the need to adapt quickly to shifting guidance; changing job roles and ways of working; the emotional and physical impact of the pandemic on staff working with people with dementia and their families; and the impact of changes made (e.g. increased PPE, remote working) on the ability to deliver post-diagnostic support. However, there were also some unintended positive outcomes of the changes. These included the ability to include family members living at a distance in remote consultations, allowing for more robust history-taking, as well as the uptake of technology to facilitate cross-sector and multidisciplinary working between professionals.

Delivering post-diagnostic dementia support during COVID-19 was challenging and forced dementia services to make adaptations. Participants expected that some of these changes would be incorporated into post-pandemic work, for example increased use of technology for multidisciplinary team meetings or blended approaches to patient-facing services involving both virtual and face to face work as appropriate. However, most participants agreed that it was not appropriate nor desirable to provide fully remote post-diagnostic support on a full time basis.

Currently, post-diagnostic dementia care and support in England and Wales is highly variable, and often insufficient in meeting the needs of people living with dementia and their families.

To develop and deliver a new primary care based intervention to enable people living with dementia and their carers to live as well as possible from the point of diagnosis to end of life.

We conducted a survey and interviews with managers and commissioners of dementia services, and in-depth qualitative studies of six different existing service models to understand current post-diagnostic support in England and Wales. We also reviewed relevant literature on the management of long-term conditions and models of post-diagnostic support. Using the findings, a new intervention has been produced through a co-development process involving stakeholder task groups, our patient and public involvement group (the Dementia Care Community), and the multidisciplinary programme management board.

Our findings highlighted key priorities from the perspective of people living with dementia, their carers, and professionals which focus on the need for personalised, proactive and holistic care. We also identified a number of challenges in the provision of good quality post-diagnostic support, and examples of how these could be overcome to deliver best practice. Importantly, we found that no one service model delivered all aspects of post-diagnostic dementia support well.

The new intervention will focus on three main areas: developing systems for delivering evidence-based support; delivering tailored care and support; and building capacity and capability. A clinical dementia expert, a specialist nurse or similar professional with dementia expertise, will be based in primary care to lead and facilitate change across these three interlinked areas to develop systems and services that meet the needs of all older people living with dementia.

Our new intervention will now be tested in practice in a feasibility and implementation study.

The aim of this study is to systematically investigate the demographic and disease predictors of cognitive and behavioural phenotype in the largest cohort of children with NF1 published to date. Based on previously published research, we examine the potential role of demographic predictors such as age, sex, SES, parental NF1 status as well as the neurological complications such as epilepsy and brain tumours in NF1 associated cognitive/ behavioural impairments.

In this cross-sectional study design, participant data were drawn from two large databases which included (i) A clinical database of all patients with NF1 seen in a clinical psychological service from 2010 to 2019 and (ii) A research dataset from two previously published studies (2,8). The complex National NF1 service based within Manchester regional genetic services is set up for individuals with complex NF1 (https://www.mangen.co.uk/healthcare-professionals/clinical-genomic-services/nf1/) in the North of the UK. Children were referred to the psychological services by NF1 clinicians if psychological assessment was warranted based on parental reports. In order to reduce clinic referral bias, the clinical sample was supplemented by including participants that were seen solely for the purposes of research studies within our centre.

Relative to population norms, 90% of the NF1 sample demonstrated significantly lower scores in at least one cognitive or behavioral domain. Family history of NF1 and lower SES were independently associated with poorer cognitive, behavioral and academic outcomes. Neurological problems such as epilepsy and hydrocephalus were associated with lower IQ and academic skills.

Cognitive and behavioural phenotypes commonly emerge via a complex interplay between genes and environmental factors, and this is true also of a monogenic condition such as NF1. Early interventions and remedial education may be targeted to risk groups such those with familial NF1, families with lower SES and those with associated neurological comorbidities.

Four comprehensive medical databases were searched from inception until February 2019: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus. The literature search was restricted to randomised clinical trials [RCTs], conducted in adult humans [ ≥ 18 years], assessing the effect of nutritional interventions on cognitive performance, and / or incidence of mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or dementia. The outcome of interest for the meta-analysis was: [1] global cognitive performance and [2] domain specific cognitive performance. Data was pooled by random model analysis and estimates of effect size were given for each domain and sub-categorised according to the type of nutritional intervention.

Twenty-two RCTs were included, of which, sixteen studies showed significant beneficial effects in favor of the nutritional intervention based on single neuropsychological test scores and / or scores of global cognitive assessment tools. Sixteen studies had sufficient data reported for meta-analysis, and marginally significant beneficial effects were found on global cognitive performance in elderly for micro-nutrient supplementation [n = 4 studies, n = 451 participants, std mean difference: 0.41 [-0.03; 0.84], p = 0.07], and EPA / DHA supplementation [n = 4 studies, n = 373 participants, std mean difference 0.57 [-0.01; 1.14], p = 0.06].

Several promising strategies, such as B-vitamin supplementation, EPA / DHA supplementation and nutrition and lifestyle counselling interventions, seem to be able to decrease age-related cognitive decline in East Asia. Large, good quality, long term trials are needed to confirm these findings, to further evaluate the role of nutritional interventions on cognitive function and to identify if these interventions are feasible and effective to decrease dementia incidence in developing economies, like East Asia.

Depression is a leading cause of disability, with older people particularly susceptible to poor outcomes.

To investigate whether the prevalence of depression and antidepressant use have changed across two decades in older people.

The Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and CFAS II) are two English population-based cohort studies of older people aged ≥65 years, with baseline measurements for each cohort conducted two decades apart (between 1990 and 1993 and between 2008 and 2011). Depression was assessed by the Geriatric Mental State examination and diagnosed with the Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer-Assisted Taxonomy algorithm.

In CFAS I, 7635 people aged ≥65 years were interviewed, of whom 1457 were diagnostically assessed. In CFAS II, 7762 people were interviewed and diagnostically assessed. Age-standardised depression prevalence in CFAS II was 6.8% (95% CI 6.3–7.5%), representing a non-significant decline from CFAS I (risk ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.64–1.07, P = 0.14). At the time of CFAS II, 10.7% of the population (95% CI 10.0–11.5%) were taking antidepressant medication, more than twice that of CFAS I (risk ratio 2.79, 95% CI 1.96–3.97, P < 0.0001). Among care home residents, depression prevalence was unchanged, but the use of antidepressants increased from 7.4% (95% CI 3.8–13.8%) to 29.2% (95% CI 22.6–36.7%).

A substantial increase in the proportion of the population reporting taking antidepressant medication is seen across two decades for people aged ≥65 years. However there was no evidence for a change in age-specific prevalence of depression.

In response to increasing numbers of older people in general hospitals who have cognitive impairment such as dementia and delirium, many hospitals have developed education and training programmes to prepare staff for this area of clinical practice.

To review the evidence on educational interventions on hospital care for older people with cognitive impairment.

A mixed methods systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken. The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, ASSIA and Scopus, as well as Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), ProQuest, PubMed and SCIE: Social Care Online. Initial searches were run in August 2014 (update search September 2016). Titles and abstracts of studies retrieved were screened independently. The full text of eligible studies were then independently assessed by two review team members. All included studies were assessed using a standard quality appraisal tool.

Eight studies relating to delirium, six on dementia and two on delirium and dementia were included, each testing the use of a different educational intervention. Overall, the quality of the studies was low. In relation to delirium, all studies reported a significant increase in participants' knowledge immediately post-intervention. Two of the dementia studies reported an increase in dementia knowledge and dementia confidence immediately post-intervention.

The variety of outcomes measured makes it difficult to summarise the findings. Although studies found increases in staff knowledge, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that educational interventions for staff lead to improved patient outcomes.

None.

Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is an evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial intervention for people with dementia but is currently not a standard part of post-diagnostic care. This qualitative study explored the views and experiences of dementia care providers on the barriers and facilitators to its implementation in usual care.

Thirty four semi-structured interviews (24 participants) were conducted across four dementia care sites in the North of England; ten were follow-up interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and then mapped to the Normalization Process Theory framework.

Participants considered CST a “good fit” with their “preferred” ways of working and goals of dementia care namely the provision of person-centered services. For facilitators delivering the intervention, compared to other behavioral interventions, CST was seen to offer benefits to their work and was easy to understand as an intervention. Training in CST and seeing benefits for clients were important motivators. Time and resources were crucial for the successful implementation of CST. Participants were keen to objectively measure benefits to participants but unsure how to do this.

CST is a cost-effective psychosocial intervention for people with dementia, recommended by national guidance. Despite our findings which show that, using the NPT framework, there are more facilitators than barriers to the implementation of CST, it is still not a standard part of post-diagnostic dementia care. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for this implementation gap in ensuring evidence-based care in translated into practice.

Psychosocial interventions for carers of people with dementia are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in dementia care. We aim to systematically review the evidence from existing systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for informal carers of people with dementia.

Thirty-one systematic reviews were identified; following quality appraisal, data from 13 reviews, rated as high or moderate quality, were extracted.

Well-designed, clearly structured multi-component interventions can help maintain the psychological health of carers of people with dementia and delay institutionalization of the latter. To be most effective, such interventions should include both an educational and a therapeutic component; delivery through a support group format may further enhance their effectiveness.

Successful translation of evidence into practice in this area remains a challenge. Future research should focus on determining the most cost-effective means of delivering effective multi-component interventions in real-world settings; the cost-effective potential of technology-based interventions is considerable.