Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore current practice, barriers and facilitators to identifying and responding to alcohol problems in memory clinics.

A questionnaire sent to professionals in 55 memory clinics in England, Wales and the Isle of Wight and two focus groups with professionals from three memory clinics in England.

Only 1/35 clinics that responded to the questionnaire was using a standardised alcohol screening tool but all attempted to gain some information about alcohol use. Without screening tools, practitioners found it difficult to determine whether alcohol use was problematic. Barriers to identification/intervention included cognitive impairment, service-user being “on guard” during assessment, presence of family members/carers, time constraints and a perception that brief interventions were not within the remit of memory clinics. Facilitators were obtaining visual clues of problem drinking during home visits and collateral information from family members/carers.

Focus group participants were recruited through convenience sampling and a small number of professionals took part. This means that the findings may be subject to selection bias and limits the generalisability of the findings.

Memory clinics should provide guidance and training for practitioners on how to intervene and respond to alcohol misuse. Further research is required to determine the most effective way to identify alcohol problems in people with cognitive impairment and how to deliver brief alcohol interventions that take account of cognitive deficits.

This is the first study to examine alcohol screening and interventions in memory clinics and identifies a need for guidance, training and further research.

IN view of the ever‐increasing application of time and motion study techniques in this country it is difficult to understand why so few manufacturers of time and labour‐saving equipment advertise the very items required by work study engineers.

WHAT a wonderful lady is Dr. Lillian Gilbreth. Whatever her age it can be discounted since years have little or no effect on one so youthful in spirit.

There is growing interest around the world in more effectively linking public payments to the provision of public goods from agriculture. However, published evidence syntheses suggest mixed, weak or uncertain evidence for many agri-environment scheme options. To inform any future “public money for public goods” based policy, further synthesis work is needed to assess the evidence-base for the full range of interventions currently funded under agri-environment schemes. Further empirical research and trials should then focus on interventions for which there is mixed or limited evidence. Furthermore, to ensure the data collected is comparable and can be synthesised effectively, it is necessary to reach agreement on essential variables and methods that can be prioritised by those conducting research and monitoring. Future policy could then prioritise public money for the public goods that can most reliably be delivered, offering better value for taxpayers and improving the provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes.