PurposeThe concept behind constant observation is not new. Whilst traditionally performed by nursing staff, it is now commonly performed by sitters. Details surrounding the usage, job description, training, clinical and cost effectiveness of sitters are not known; hence the reason for this review.MethodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed from the years 1960 to October 2011. The definition for sitter used in the articles was accepted for this review.ResultsFrom this review, it is evident that sitters are being employed in a variety of settings. The question of which type of person would provide the most benefit in the sitter role is still not clear; whilst sitters have typically included family and volunteers, it may be trained volunteers who may offer the most cost-effective solution. The paucity of information available regarding the training and assessments of sitters and the lack of formal guidelines regulating sitters’ use results in a lack of information available regarding these sitters, and current available evidence is conflicting regarding the benefits in terms of cost and clinical outcome. The only strong evidence relating to clinical benefit comes from the use of fully-trained sitters as part of a multi-interventional program (i.e., HELP)ConclusionsCurrent evidence supports a role for the sitter as part of the management of patients with delirium. The most cost-effective sitter role appears to be trained volunteers. Further research is needed to determine the specific type of training required for the sitter role. The creation of a national set of regulations or guidelines would provide safeguards in the industry to ensure safe and effective patient care.

A 64-year-old woman presented to our clinic with a 4-year history of cognitive decline. The clinical examination revealed an incidental finding of the ‘SAPHO’ (Synovitis Acne Pustulosis Hyperostosis Osteitis) syndrome which was subsequently confirmed by diagnostic imaging. Owing to her classical presentation and her asymptomatic status she was managed conservatively with observation without any complication.

Background Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) among military veterans are increasingly recognized as important causes of both short and long-term neuropsychological dysfunction. However, the association between TBI and the development of dementia is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify the risks of all-cause dementia including Alzheimer’s diseases and related dementias (ADRD), and to explore whether the relationships are influenced by the severity and recurrence of head injuries. Methods Database searches of Medline, Embase, Ovid Healthstar, PubMed and PROSPERO were undertaken from inception to December 2020 and supplemented with grey literature searches without language restrictions. Observational cohort studies examining TBI and incident dementia among veterans were analysed using Dersimonian-Laird random-effects models. Results Thirteen cohort studies totalling over 7.1 million observations with veterans were included. TBI was associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55–2.45), vascular dementia (HR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.46–2.80), but not Alzheimer’s disease (HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.88–1.91). Severe and penetrating injuries were associated with a higher risk of all-cause dementia (HR = 3.35, 95% CI: 2.47–4.55) than moderate injuries (HR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.44–5.52) and mild injuries (HR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.30–2.80). However, the dose–response relationship was attenuated when additional studies with sufficient data to classify trauma severity were included. Conclusion TBI is a significant risk factor for incident all-cause dementia and vascular dementia. These results need to be interpreted cautiously in the presence of significant heterogeneity.

Whilst a significant amount of research has been done on decision-making capacity, it is mostly focused on healthcare; in particular, on patient consent for treatment for the non-aphasic population. Although a communication aid exists to aid assessment of decision-making capacity for healthcare for aphasic individuals, no similar tools exist to aid financial and legal decision-making capacity assessments. This paper highlights an important problem encountered during clinical practice which requires further research.

Background With an ageing population, the incidence of dementia will in­crease, as will the number of persons requiring decision-making capacity assessments. For over 10 years, we have trained family physicians in conducting decision-making capacity assessments. Physician feedback post-training, however, has highlighted the need to integrate the decision-making capacity assessment process into the primary care context. The purpose of this study was to develop a decision-making capacity as­sessment clinical pathway for implementation in primary care. Methods A qualitative exploratory case-study design was used to ob­tain participants’ perspectives regarding the utility of a visual algorithm detailing a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway for use in primary care. Three focus groups were conducted with family physicians (n=4) and allied health professionals (n=6) in two primary care clinics in Alberta. A revised algorithm was developed based on their feedback. Results In the focus groups, participants identified inconsistencies and a lack of standardization regarding decision-making capacity assessments within primary care, and provided feedback regarding a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway to make it more applicable to primary care. Participants described this pathway as appealing and straight­forward; they also made suggestions to make it more primary care-centric. Participants indicated that the presented pathway would improve teamwork and standardization of decision-making capacity assessments within primary care. Conclusions Use of a decision-making capacity assessment clinical path­way has the potential to standardize decision-making capacity assessment processes in primary care, and support least in­trusive and least restrictive patient outcomes for community-dwelling older adults.