Council tenancies and hoarding behaviours: A study with a large social landlord in England.

Hoarding behaviours are highly stigmatised and often hidden. People with problematic hoarding behaviours have a higher rate of mental health and other healthcare and social services utilisation. Hoarding is a community health problem, one factor being housing insecurity. Hoarding behaviours represent significant burden to housing providers, impact the community and dealing with it involves multiple community agencies. This study with a city council in England with a large housing stock (over 14,000 properties) in summer 2021 sought to understand the nature, circumstances and extent that hoarding presents. We developed a reporting system and conducted 11 interviews with housing officers in which they described a case to explain their involvement. Our report details the nature of 38 people who hoard: 47% had a known disability or vulnerability, 34% presented a fire and environmental risk, 87% lived alone and 60% were resident in flats. Our qualitative themes are: Working with others, Balancing an enforcement approach, Feeling conflicted, Complex needs of people who hoard and Staff needs. The cases described by the housing officers are combined into six case studies and illustrate the complex, multi-agency circumstances around decision making and risk stratification. Our findings point to housing officers as frontline professionals dealing with a public health and social care issue which is often the manifestation of complex life histories and mental health conditions. We suggest a greater focus on risk stratification and a more holistic approach to hoarding cases to effectively deal with this most complex of community health and social care issues.

The impact of providing end-of-life care during a pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of health and social care staff: Systematic review and meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Disease outbreaks and disasters can result in excess deaths and severe disruption of usual end-of-life care processes. We aimed to: i) synthesise evidence describing the experiences of health and social care staff providing end-of-life care during a disease outbreak or humanitarian disaster, ii) understand the impact on their mental health and wellbeing and, iii) identify means of support. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-synthesis was conducted including studies of health and social care staff providing end-of-life care during disease outbreaks (Ebola, COVID-19, SARs, MERs) or humanitarian disasters (2001-2020). MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and grey literature databases were searched systematically, with forward and backward citation searching of included studies. Any research study designs, in any care settings, were included. Study quality was assessed using an appraisal tool relevant to each study design. Qualitative meta-synthesis was used to analyse the findings, which were then reported narratively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020181444. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, including 10 Ebola studies and two COVID-19 studies. The analysis generated two superordinate themes: individual experience and organisational responsibilities. Individual experience comprised four themes: dignity in death, positive experiences, negative experience and support for staff. Organisational responsibilities comprised four themes: preparation, adaption, resources, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). DISCUSSION: No studies quantitively measured the impact of providing end-of-life care on staff mental health and wellbeing, however qualitative studies described experiences in varied settings. Serious disease outbreaks and disasters can expose care staff to abnormally high levels of mortality and suffering. Health and social care systems need to proactively prepare for future events and enable peer support mechanisms that may help mitigate experiences of psychological distress in humanitarian crises.

How do potentially inappropriate medications and polypharmacy affect mortality in frail and non-frail cognitively impaired older adults? A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether the use of potentially inappropriate central nervous system acting medications, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or polypharmacy are associated with mortality in cognitively impaired older adults and whether frailer people are at greater risk of harm. SETTING: A cohort study nested within the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II, a population representative cohort study of the older population in Cambridgeshire, Nottingham and Newcastle, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1154 cognitively impaired participants, aged 65 years or older. EXPOSURES: Any use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, other anticholinergic medication, benzodiazepines or PPIs, polypharmacy (5-9) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 reported medications) were ascertained at baseline. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Mortality up to 8 years follow-up. HRs associated with potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), frailty and their interaction were estimated adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Within the sample, 44% were taking one or more PIM. Apart from antipsychotics (adjusted HR=3.24, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.73), use of specific PIM was not associated with greater subsequent mortality. Polypharmacy (HR=1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45) and hyperpolypharmacy were associated with mortality (HR=1.60, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). Being frail (HR=1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.72) or prefrail (HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.20) was associated with increased mortality. There was some evidence that the HR for polypharmacy on mortality was lower among frailer individuals, but the overall polypharmacy by frailty interaction was not statistically significant (p=0.102). CONCLUSIONS: For those with cognitive impairment, greater concern should be afforded to the number of medications than the prescription of specific classes. Frailer individuals may have a lower relative risk of mortality associated with polypharmacy than less frail individuals.