COVID‐19 research from China suggests health care workers are at risk of distress, have specific concerns, and need support. It remains unknown whether findings are applicable to UK health care staff and whether psychological support based on generic approaches is effective. We administered an online survey at a leading neuroscience hospital in the UK to examine how individual staff characteristics contribute to distress, concerns, and interventions most valued during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We found a high incidence of distress, particularly in females and staff with previous mental health history. Concerns fell into three factors: ‘risk of infection’, ‘work challenges’, and ‘social change’, and were affected by professional role and contact with COVID‐19 patients. These three factors predicted distress. Psychological support and clear updates were deemed most useful, with specific needs affected by age, professional role, and contact with COVID‐19 patients. This is the first documentation of a high incidence of psychological distress predicted by three types of concerns in health care workers of a neuroscience hospital. Distress, concerns, and interventions most valued were all affected by individual staff characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of providing stratified, one to one support interventions, tailored to professional group, and background, rather than more generic approaches. Practitioner points The COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in a high incidence of psychological distress in UK health care staff. Distress, concerns, and interventions most valued are influenced by individual staff characteristics. Stratified, one‐to‐one support interventions, tailored to professional group, and background, rather than more generic approaches for stress reduction and resilience, are crucial.

No abstract

Background: Although the impact of COVID-19 disruption on healthcare staff is increasingly understood, there has been no discussion of how it affects neurological patients and their families. This study sought to understand the impact of COVID-19 on staff, patients and families. Methods: The Department of Neuropsychology at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery established three new support services for staff, patients and families. Semi-structured interviews elicited concerns and if these were affected by COVID-19. Staff members were asked to complete the General Health Questionnaire-12. Results: Few staff members presented for support, but nearly all indicated significant distress, reflecting increased anxiety and reduced social support. Patients described exacerbated emotional, cognitive and physical concerns, and greater vulnerability to isolation and economic hardship. Families and carers reported increased distress arising from hospital lockdown. Conclusion: COVID-19 disruption affects staff, patients and families. Patients and families described additional challenges, which emphasize the importance of providing psychological support during these extraordinary times.

Primary progressive aphasia remains a diagnostic challenge despite (or even because of) the increasing availability of ancillary tests and biomarkers. We present a 67-year-old man with apparently sporadic logopenic aphasia and positive Alzheimer biomarkers who was subsequently found also to have a pathogenic mutation in the progranulin gene. This was signalled by early atypical features (mild expressive agrammatism and behavioural change, rapid clinical deterioration) around the core logopenic aphasia syndrome. Each of the canonical progressive aphasia syndromes has a ‘halo’ of less typical variants that may herald alternative or additional pathologies. The accurate diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia depends on careful clinical analysis to direct investigations appropriately.

No abstract