ObjectivesTo test whether the use of potentially inappropriate central nervous system acting medications, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or polypharmacy are associated with mortality in cognitively impaired older adults and whether frailer people are at greater risk of harm.SettingA cohort study nested within the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II, a population representative cohort study of the older population in Cambridgeshire, Nottingham and Newcastle, UK.ParticipantsA total of 1154 cognitively impaired participants, aged 65 years or older.ExposuresAny use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, other anticholinergic medication, benzodiazepines or PPIs, polypharmacy (5–9) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 reported medications) were ascertained at baseline. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria.Primary outcomeMortality up to 8 years follow-up. HRs associated with potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), frailty and their interaction were estimated adjusting for covariates.ResultsWithin the sample, 44% were taking one or more PIM. Apart from antipsychotics (adjusted HR=3.24, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.73), use of specific PIM was not associated with greater subsequent mortality. Polypharmacy (HR=1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45) and hyperpolypharmacy were associated with mortality (HR=1.60, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). Being frail (HR=1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.72) or prefrail (HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.20) was associated with increased mortality. There was some evidence that the HR for polypharmacy on mortality was lower among frailer individuals, but the overall polypharmacy by frailty interaction was not statistically significant (p=0.102).ConclusionsFor those with cognitive impairment, greater concern should be afforded to the number of medications than the prescription of specific classes. Frailer individuals may have a lower relative risk of mortality associated with polypharmacy than less frail individuals.

No abstract

Hoarding behaviours are highly stigmatised and often hidden. People with problematic hoarding behaviours have a higher rate of mental health and other healthcare and social services utilisation. Hoarding is a community health problem, one factor being housing insecurity. Hoarding behaviours represent significant burden to housing providers, impact the community and dealing with it involves multiple community agencies. This study with a city council in England with a large housing stock (over 14,000 properties) in summer 2021 sought to understand the nature, circumstances and extent that hoarding presents. We developed a reporting system and conducted 11 interviews with housing officers in which they described a case to explain their involvement. Our report details the nature of 38 people who hoard: 47% had a known disability or vulnerability, 34% presented a fire and environmental risk, 87% lived alone and 60% were resident in flats. Our qualitative themes are: Working with others, Balancing an enforcement approach, Feeling conflicted, Complex needs of people who hoard and Staff needs. The cases described by the housing officers are combined into six case studies and illustrate the complex, multi-agency circumstances around decision making and risk stratification. Our findings point to housing officers as frontline professionals dealing with a public health and social care issue which is often the manifestation of complex life histories and mental health conditions. We suggest a greater focus on risk stratification and a more holistic approach to hoarding cases to effectively deal with this most complex of community health and social care issues.

No abstract

Aims: Foodbanks provide emergency food provision. This need can be triggered by a change in circumstance or a crisis. Failures in the social security safety net are the most significant driver for hunger in the UK. There is some evidence that an advisory service which runs alongside a foodbank is more effective in reducing emergency provision and the duration and severity of hunger. The ‘Making a Difference’ project at an English foodbank is a pilot scheme aiming to increase financial resilience in their service users. From summer 2022, they introduced new advice worker roles, in partnership with Shelter [Housing advice] and Citizen’s Advice [General, debt and benefits advice], aiming to pre-empt the need for foodbank use, to triage the financial needs of service users and refer appropriately to reduce repeat visits to the foodbank. Methods: This qualitative study involved in-depth interviews with four staff and four volunteers to evaluate barriers, facilitators and potential friction points in referrals and partnership working. Findings: Our data were analysed thematically into four themes: Holistic needs assessment; Reaching seldom heard communities; Empowerment; The needs of staff and volunteers. Two case studies illustrate the complexity of people’s needs. Conclusion: A financial inclusion service operating within foodbanks giving housing, debt and benefits advice shows some promise in reaching people in crisis at the point of need. Based within the heart of a community, it appears to meet the complex needs of very vulnerable people who may have found mainstream support services inaccessible. This asset-based approach with the foodbank as a trusted provider enabled joined up, compassionate, holistic, and person-centred advice quickly cutting across multiple agencies, reaching underserved and socially excluded clients. We suggest that supportive services are needed for volunteers and staff who are vulnerable to vicarious trauma from listening and supporting people in crisis.