Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted on the provision of care and routine activity of all National Health Service (NHS) services. While General Practitioner referrals to memory services in England have returned to pre‐pandemic levels, the estimated dementia diagnosis rate (DDR) fell by 5.4% between March 2020 and February 2023. Methods: In this paper we explore whether this reduction is accurate or is an artefact of the way the NHS collects data. Results: We explore the processes that may have affected national dementia diagnosis rates during and following the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conclusions: We discuss what action could be taken to improve the DDR in the future. Key points: Despite General Practitioner (GP) referrals to memory services in England returning to levels seen before the pandemic, there was a decline of 5.4% in the estimated dementia diagnosis rate (DDR) from March 2020 to February 2023.This paper explores the factors which may have affected the national DDR reduction. These include a backlog in dementia referrals, a reduction in coding of diagnoses, or a decrease in true dementia prevalence secondary to excess COVID‐19 deaths which has yet to be reflected in the DDR denominator.Further work is suggested to accurately capture dementia prevalence in the United Kingdom (UK). These include an up‐to‐date multicentre population‐based cohort study and adjusting the DDR denominator for factors known to affect dementia susceptibility such as deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the potential for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) of England and Wales to incentivise the exclusion of people with dementia from research. The MCA is intended to standardise and safeguard the inclusion of people with cognitive impairments in research. This entails various procedural requirements, which in pressurised research contexts can lead researchers to exclude people with dementia as a means of simplifying bureaucratic constraints. I consider the risks of an 'unethical ethics', wherein procedural ethics indirectly causes the exclusion of people with dementia from research, undermining historic successes toward increased inclusivity. I suggest several solutions, including enhanced sensitivity to impairments and shifting the burden of proof from justifying inclusion to justifying exclusion. The paper responds to the 'ethics creep' tradition in procedural ethics, and critical appraisals of capacity legislation in dementia research. This approach recognises that institutional research ethics is itself a major ethical concern and can unwittingly beget unethical practices. Dementia researchers must be alert to such unethical ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]