SYNOPSISThe prevalence rate of subjective memory impairment (SMI) and its value as a predictor of future depression or dementia was studied in a community sample of elderly residents in one electoral ward using the short-CARE. SMI was found to be common, occurring in 25% of subjects. Subjects with SMI were more likely to be suffering from either dementia or depression than those without the complaint, although 60% of subjects with SMI did not have evidence of either disorder. When followed up over a 2-year period, subjects with SMI were found to be at four-fold greater risk of developing future dementia and two-fold greater risk of developing a depression compared with those without SMI. The SMI scale was not found to be useful as a population screen for dementia or depression, although two of the nine items might have value as screening questions in clinical circumstances to determine those with memory complaints at risk for dementia.
ObjectivesMany family carers provide assistance with medicines that is vital for optimal clinical outcomes. Medicines-related tasks are known to contribute to carer burden and stress. This study examined the experiences of family carers when providing medicines-related assistance for a person with dementia, to indicate how services could become more responsive to the specific needs of this group of carers.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were undertaken with family carers and care-recipients identified though a memory clinic in north London and a local Alzheimer's Society. The interview guide, comprising open questions, was informed by previous studies and consultation with stakeholders. Qualitative procedures involving a framework approach were employed in the analysis.Key findingsFourteen interviews with carers and five with care-recipients were conducted. These highlighted the burden and challenges, surrounding medicines-management activities. As well as practical aspects that could be complex, carers were commonly making judgements about the need for and appropriateness of medicines. Although experiences were varied, carers reported difficulties in maintaining supplies, ensuring adherence to regimens and accessing health professionals; and they made some recommendations for service improvements. Carers’ difficulty in obtaining information and advice about medicines was compounded by their desire to allow the care-recipient to retain autonomy over their medicines as long as possible.ConclusionThis study highlights the distinct needs and problems with regard to medicines-management when caring for a person with dementia. As the prevalence of dementia rises, interventions designed to address these specific aspects of reduce carer-burden should be a priority for health professionals.
This study confirms the need for improved documentation of DSH and its coding; this needs to be reviewed at local and national level. The vast majority of older people who attempt suicide do have subsequent contact with psychiatric services. There is a strong likelihood of repeat DSH and a higher risk of death by natural causes, emphasising the need to conceptualise DSH as a risk factor relevant to all medical specialities.
SummaryIn ‘Wake-up call for British psychiatry’ Craddock et al explained how recent attempts to improve psychosocial care for people with mental illness focus on non-specific psychosocial support. This has been at the expense of proper diagnostic assessment and prescription of treatment by psychiatrists aimed at treatment of specific disorders and recovery. They describe a creeping devaluation of psychiatry which is caricatured as narrow, biological, reductionist, oppressive, discriminatory and stigmatising. Some trusts have implemented ‘New Ways of Working for Psychiatrists’ in a way that undermines the central importance of psychiatrists in mental healthcare. Consequently, patients may be treated in secondary care without ever being seen by a psychiatrist. We consider a number of different changes that have interacted in unforeseen ways, with unintended adverse consequences for psychiatric services in England. We aim to continue the debate here.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.