Search

Historians have overlooked the 1971–2 Conservative EEC rebellion because of the relative ease with which Edward Heath took the UK into the European Economic Community (EEC). In contrast with the rebellion over ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, Heath did not lose a vote on 'Europe'. However, the episode marks a turning point in the way anti‐EEC dissent was expressed in the Conservative Party. The rush for EEC entry after the 1970 election stunned anti‐marketeers who believed they would not be corralled into voting against their stated beliefs. This pushed Neil Marten MP into organising a more sophisticated rebel organisation that would intensify the rebellion against the EEC. When compared to previous dissent on the EEC, it was organised and fully prepared to bring down a Conservative government. The episode nearly split the Conservative Party in two as anti‐market MPs threatened their constituency associations with by‐elections to resist grassroots pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historians have overlooked the 1971–2 Conservative EEC rebellion because of the relative ease with which Edward Heath took the UK into the European Economic Community (EEC). In contrast with the rebellion over ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, Heath did not lose a vote on 'Europe'. However, the episode marks a turning point in the way anti‐EEC dissent was expressed in the Conservative Party. The rush for EEC entry after the 1970 election stunned anti‐marketeers who believed they would not be corralled into voting against their stated beliefs. This pushed Neil Marten MP into organising a more sophisticated rebel organisation that would intensify the rebellion against the EEC. When compared to previous dissent on the EEC, it was organised and fully prepared to bring down a Conservative government. The episode nearly split the Conservative Party in two as anti‐market MPs threatened their constituency associations with by‐elections to resist grassroots pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: COVID‐19 has disproportionately affected people living with dementia and their carers. Its effects on health and social care systems necessitated a rapid‐response approach to care planning and decision‐making in this population, with reflexivity and responsiveness to changing individual and system needs at its core. Considering this, a decision‐aid to help families of persons with dementia was developed. Objectives: To coproduce with people living with dementia, and the people who care for them, a decision‐aid for family carers of people living with dementia, to support decisions during the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were undertaken in 2020 with: (1) staff from two English national end‐of‐life and supportive care organizations; and (2) people living with dementia and family carers. Simultaneously, a rapid review of current evidence on making decisions with older people at the end of life was undertaken. Evidence from these inputs was combined to shape the decision‐aid through a series of workshops with key stakeholders, including our patient and public involvement group, which consisted of a person living with dementia and family carers; a group of clinical and academic experts and a group of policy and charity leads. Results: The rapid review of existing evidence highlighted the need to consider both process and outcome elements of decision‐making and their effects on people living with dementia and their families. The qualitative interviews discussed a wide range of topics, including trust, agency and confusion in making decisions in the context of COVID‐19. The decision‐aid primarily focussed on care moves, legal matters, carer wellbeing and help‐seeking. Conclusions: Combining different sources and forms of evidence was a robust and systematic process that proved efficient and valuable in creating a novel decision‐aid for family carers within the context of COVID‐19. The output from this process is an evidence‐based practical decision‐aid coproduced with people living with dementia, family carers, clinical and academic experts and leading national dementia and palliative care organizations. Patient or Public Contribution: We worked with people living with dementia and family carers and other key stakeholders throughout this study, from study development and design to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People from ethnic minority backgrounds living with dementia are more likely to be diagnosed later and have less access to health and social care support than their White counterparts in the United Kingdom (UK). Covid‐19 has exacerbated health inequalities and diminished trust from underserved communities in the government and health services. The wider aim of the study was to explore the impact of covid‐19 on Black and South‐Asian people living with dementia and their carers as well as exploring the experiences of dementia care. The present paper specifically explores their views on trust and mistrust using an ecological model. Method: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 11 family carers and four people living with dementia from South Asian or Black communities living in the community. Thematic analysis was used to analyse data. Design: An exploratory qualiative design was used. Results: Four main themes were developed exploring trust at the structural, organisational, community and individual level. At the structural level, participants discussed the inequity of Covid‐19, some lack of trust in the UK Government and confusion in its messaging, and the anxiety sometimes leading to curtailment of media usage. At the organisational level, there was some evidence of a perceived lack of person‐centred and culturally sensitive care from healthcare professionals, as well as concerns around care homes as places of safety. At the neighbourhood community level, participants discussed both a distrust as well as a strengthening of relationships and, at the individual level, factors such as knowledge of services, identity, and faith influenced their experience of the pandemic. Conclusions: People living with dementia need support at all levels and this study highlights how the pandemic impacted each level. Ways to improve trust in the Government and health professionals alongside culturally adapted health messaging should be explored. Alongside this, an examination of how cultural values and norms may influence help‐seeking responses to dementia and increase trust in services may be helpful post‐pandemic. Key points: The pandemic impacted people from ethnic minority backgrounds living with dementia and their carers at each level of the socioecological modelA lack of trust in the Government and an increase in anxiety due to the media was reportedThere was a perceived lack of person‐centred and culturally sensitive care from healthcare professionals and concerns around care homes as places of safetyParticipants relationships with their community, knowledge of services, identity, and faith influenced their experience of the pandemic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

United Kingdom mental healthcare guidelines recommend recovery-focused services for people with psychosis. We evaluated a "Recovery and Enablement Track" (RET) aiming to promote recovery and well-being, reduce distress and maintain independence from secondary care following discharge, for people with established psychosis and long histories of secondary care. From March 2015 to December 2019, 214 individuals entered the RET and were followed up 12 months' post-discharge. Recovery, well-being, and distress were measured at assessment, review, and discharge. Of 214 total people, 86 consented to inclusion for this evaluation. Well-being and recovery significantly improved from assessment to discharge – distress did not. Distress improved from review to discharge, suggesting improvement during service contact. 79% (68/86) of individuals were discharged to the care of their family doctor, and 22% of these (15/68) re-presented before 12-month follow-up. Recovery and well-being improved from assessment to discharge, distress improved from review to discharge. Half of consenting participants were successfully discharged from secondary care following the RET, suggesting potential to promote recovery. Comparison to a formal control condition with systematic analysis of any biasing effect of missing data (i.e. through refusal to participate) is now indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]