There has been little qualitative research into the experiences of UK partners of veterans with PTSD. This study therefore aimed to explore how partners constructed their experiences of living with the condition. Fifteen female partners of male UK veterans were recruited and interviewed. Using a social constructionist thematic analysis, five themes were constructed: the women's need to subdue own emotional and behavioral responses; dilemmas about whether the veteran was unwell or 'bad'; attempts at negotiating multiple roles; challenging the narrative of veterans as heroes; and the relational struggle with the transition to nonmilitary life. This study highlighted the importance of considering the veteran as existing within a relational and cultural context, and the need to include partners in therapeutic interventions.

It was possible to develop and field test nationally agreed quality standards for memory services. We believe that by implementing MSNAP it will be possible to improve the quality of UK memory services.

Aim: To evaluate patients’ and carers’ experiences of attending UK memory services. Methods: As part of their enrollment in the Memory Services National Accreditation Programme, memory services sent questionnaires to patients and carers about their experiences of attending the service. Results: A total of 298 carers and 280 individuals with dementia from 21 memory services responded. People were very satisfied with the diagnostic processes and staff courtesy; however, there was a lack of written information across a range of key areas. In general, carers were better informed than patients but lacked information on respite care or how to get a carers’ assessment. Carers were more likely than patients to feel pressurized into making decisions about treatment. Conclusion: This study provides the first profile of the experiences of patients and carers attending memory services. Although in general they were very satisfied with the care received, more needs to be done to improve the provision of information.

Background: Internationally, systematic screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) usually includes annual recall. Researchers and policy-makers support extending screening intervals, citing evidence from observational studies with low incidence rates. However, there is little research around the acceptability to people with diabetes (PWD) and health care professionals (HCP) about changing eye screening intervals. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to explore issues surrounding acceptability and the barriers and enablers for changing from annual screening, using in-depth, semistructured interviews analysed using the constant comparative method. PWD were recruited from general practices and HCP from eye screening networks and related specialties in North West England using purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted prior to the commencement of and during a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing fixed annual with variable (6, 12 or 24 month) interval risk-based screening. Results: Thirty PWD and 21 HCP participants were interviewed prior to and 30 PWD during the parallel RCT. The data suggests that a move to variable screening intervals was generally acceptable in principle, though highlighted significant concerns and challenges to successful implementation. The current annual interval was recognised as unsustainable against a backdrop of increasing diabetes prevalence. There were important caveats attached to acceptability and a need for clear safeguards around: the safety and reliability of calculating screening intervals, capturing all PWD, referral into screening of PWD with diabetic changes regardless of planned interval. For PWD the 6-month interval was perceived positively as medical reassurance, and the 12-month seen as usual treatment. Concerns were expressed by many HCP and PWD that a 2-year interval was too lengthy and was risky for detecting STDR. There were also concerns about a negative effect upon PWD care and increasing non-attendance rates. Amongst PWD, there was considerable conflation and misunderstanding about different eye-related appointments within the health care system.

Although improvements in ECT delivery have coincided with the accreditation service, other factors may have also contributed.