BackgroundUK Dementia Strategies prioritise fair access to mental and physical healthcare. We investigated whether there are inequalities by deprivation or gender in healthcare received by people with dementia, and compared healthcare received by people with and without dementia.Methodswe investigated primary care records of 68,061 community dwelling dementia patients and 259,337 people without dementia (2002–13). We tested hypotheses that people with dementia from more deprived areas, and who are women receive more psychotropic medication, fewer surgery consultations, are less likely to receive annual blood pressure, weight monitoring and an annual review, compared with those from less deprived areas and men.Resultsonly half of people with dementia received a documented annual review. Deprivation was not associated with healthcare received. Compared to men with dementia, women with dementia had lower rates of surgery consultations (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.90–0.91), of annual blood pressure monitoring (adjusted IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95–0.97) and of annual weight monitoring (adjusted IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90–0.93). Men with dementia were less likely to be taking psychotropic medication than women with dementia. People with dementia had fewer surgery consultations and were less likely to have their weight and blood pressure monitored at least annually, compared to the non-dementia group.Conclusionspeople with dementia, in particular women, appear to receive less primary healthcare, but take more psychotropic medication that may negatively impact their physical health. Reducing these inequalities and improving access of people with dementia to preventative healthcare could improve the health of people with dementia.

BackgroundThere is mixed evidence that older people bereaved of a spouse or partner are at risk of adverse outcomes. The main difficulty is to take account of other explanatory factors. We tested for an association between a patient’s death and the timing of any bereavement of a cohabitee.MethodSelf-controlled case series study in which each case serves as his or her own control and which thereby accounts for all fixed measurable and unmeasurable confounders. We used the Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database to identify patients who died aged 50–99 years during the period 2003 to 2014. We used the household identifier in the database to determine whether they had an opposite sex cohabitee at the start of the observation period.Results38,773 men and 23,396 women who had died and who had a cohabitee at the start of the observation period, were identified and included in male and female cohorts respectively. A higher risk of death was found in the 24 months after the death of the cohabitee than in the time classified as unexposed. The greatest risk was during the first 3 months after the death of the cohabitee (age-adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.45–1.83 in the male cohort, and IRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.52–1.90 in the female cohort).ConclusionRisk of death in men or women was significantly higher after the death of a cohabitee and this was greatest in the first three months of bereavement. We need more evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce this increased mortality.

Introduction The very end of life can be associated with pain, anxiety and caregiver burden. Numerous measures seek to assess the quality of death and dying and satisfaction with care, but there is a lack of evidence and consensus on the best tools. Aims To identify all existing tools for assessing quality of death and dying and the quality of care and satisfaction with care at the very end of life, and systematically evaluate those which have been psychometrically validated. Method Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl and Psycinfo) were searched in February 2016 using a combination of MeSH and free-text terms on end of life and satisfaction with care. Article titles, abstracts and full-text papers were reviewed to identify all papers reporting multi-item measures for assessing quality of death and dying and/or quality of care and satisfaction with care at the very end of life. Articles reporting on at least one psychometric investigation of the measures identified were then assessed for quality, using the COSMIN checklist (Mokkink, 2010). Results The initial search terms identified 4136 articles after excluding any duplicates. Seventy-seven papers, reporting 48 different measures, met the initial inclusion criteria. The most commonly used measures were the Quality Of Death and Dying (QODD;Patrick, 2001) and FAMCARE (Kristjanson, 1986). Both have been validated in a variety of cultural settings and participant groups. Conclusion Many measures assess quality of death and dying and satisfaction with care, but few have been thoroughly validated. QODD and FAMCARE are the best of those assessed.

No abstract