Introducing new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease demands a fundamental shift in diagnosis and care for most health systems around the world. Understanding the views of health professionals, potential patients, care partners and taxpayers is crucial for service planning and expectation management about these new therapies.

To investigate the public's and professionals’ perspectives regarding (1) acceptability of new DMTs for Alzheimer's disease; (2) perceptions of risk/benefits; (3) the public's willingness to pay (WTP).

Informed by the ‘theoretical framework of acceptability’, we conducted two online surveys with 1000 members of the general public and 77 health professionals in Ireland. Descriptive and multivariate regression analyses examined factors associated with DMT acceptance and WTP.

Healthcare professionals had a higher acceptance (65%) than the general public (48%). Professionals were more concerned about potential brain bleeds (70%) and efficacy (68%), while the public focused on accessibility and costs. Younger participants (18–24 years) displayed a higher WTP. Education and insurance affected WTP decisions.

This study exposes complex attitudes toward emerging DMTs for Alzheimer's disease, challenging conventional wisdom in multiple dimensions. A surprising 25% of the public expressed aversion to these new treatments, despite society's deep-rooted fear of dementia in older age. Healthcare professionals displayed nuanced concerns, prioritising clinical effectiveness and potential brain complications. Intriguingly, younger, better-educated and privately insured individuals exhibited a greater WTP, foregrounding critical questions about healthcare equity. These multifaceted findings serve as a guidepost for healthcare strategists, policymakers and ethicists as we edge closer to integrating DMTs into Alzheimer's disease care.

Hospital discharge is a significant transitional phase with varying levels of needs and risks to be managed as lapses in communication commonly happen between secondary/tertiary and primary care.

Our aim was to look at inclusion of delirium diagnosis in discharge summaries based on standards set by: 1. Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) National Standard for Patient Discharge Summary Information 2. NICE Guidelines on Delirium: prevention, diagnosis and management (CG 103)

All inpatients referred to Liaison Psychiatry from 9thJuly 2019 till 5th January 2020 were included, n = 729. Compared discharge summaries diagnoses to the internal Liaison Psychiatry ICD 10 consensus diagnosis and also HIPE coded diagnosis specifically for delirium.

Delirium diagnoses and inclusion of delirium-specific information on discharge summary

Hospital discharge summaries are essentially the main communication link between hospitalists and general practitioners to ensure continuity and future care of patients. Delirium diagnosis is not always recorded in discharge summaries. This is a risk to be managed. Education is vital to ensure awareness, prevention, early recognition and to ensure recording of diagnosis of delirium.

Memory services have expanded significantly in the UK, but limited performance data have been published. The aim of this programme was to determine variation in London memory services and address this through service improvement projects. In 2016 London memory services were invited to participate in an audit consisting of case note reviews of at least 50 consecutively seen patients.

Ten services participated in the audit, totalling 590 patients. Variation was noted in neuroimaging practice, neuropsychology referrals, diagnosis subtype, non-dementia diagnoses, waiting times and post-diagnostic support. Findings from the audit were used to initiate four service improvement projects.

Memory services should consider streamlining pathways to reduce waiting times, implementing pathways for patients who do not have dementia, monitoring appropriateness of neuroimaging, and working with commissioners and primary care to ensure that access to post-diagnostic interventions is consistent with the updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) dementia guideline.

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.

To evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233).

Fifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.

All CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI −1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.

The CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.

Patients living with chronic pain are typically resource intensive, their care requirements are long term and referral to secondary care is not always expeditious. To provide more appropriate, accessible and cost-effective care, Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust reviewed the needs of the patients, their current care and the numbers requiring treatment for non-malignant chronic pain, initially starting with musculoskeletal pain.

We estimated the number of people with chronic pain being treated outside general practice by the NHS in Tower Hamlets. A working group established set criteria to define a chronic pain patient. We surveyed appropriate clinicians to determine the approximate number of patients who fitted our inclusion criteria, the approximate number of follow-up appointments they required and their care pathways. Secondly, we estimated the cost of care for chronic pain patients using NHS national tariff and reference cost data. We also took a convenience sample of chronic pain patients and recorded their history of care.

The routes and pathways of care are complex and multiple. We estimate between 4.0% and 5.5% of new patients in rheumatology, orthopaedics, occupational therapy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy and up to 90% in the pain clinic are people living with chronic pain. The cost of this care ranged from £296 for a course of physiotherapy to £1911 for a patient seen in physiotherapy, orthopaedic and the pain clinics.

There is no facility in current management information services that identifies people being treated for non-specific chronic pain; therefore, estimating both the numbers and costs for treating these people is difficult. National tariff and notional cost data provide estimates only, of an ‘average patient’; the real cost of these patients is unknown.