A meta-review of literature reviews assessing the capacity of patients with severe mental disorders to make decisions about their healthcare.

Background: Determining the mental capacity of psychiatric patients for making healthcare related decisions is crucial in clinical practice. This meta-review of review articles comprehensively examines the current evidence on the capacity of patients with a mental illness to make medical care decisions. Methods: Systematic review of review articles following PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo were electronically searched up to 31 January 2020. Free text searches and medical subject headings were combined to identify literature reviews and meta-analyses published in English, and summarising studies on the capacity of patients with serious mental illnesses to make healthcare and treatment related decisions, conducted in any clinical setting and with a quantitative synthesis of results. Publications were selected as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The AMSTAR II tool was used to assess the quality of reviews. Results: Eleven publications were reviewed. Variability on methods across studies makes it difficult to precisely estimate the prevalence of decision-making capacity in patients with mental disorders. Nonetheless, up to three-quarters of psychiatric patients, including individuals with serious illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may have capacity to make medical decisions in the context of their illness. Most evidence comes from studies conducted in the hospital setting; much less information exists on the healthcare decision making capacity of mental disorder patients while in the community. Stable psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients may have a similar capacity to make healthcare related decisions. Patients with a mental illness have capacity to judge risk-reward situations and to adequately decide about the important treatment outcomes. Different symptoms may impair different domains of the decisional capacity of psychotic patients. Decisional capacity impairments in psychotic patients are temporal, identifiable, and responsive to interventions directed towards simplifying information, encouraging training and shared decision making. The publications complied satisfactorily with the AMSTAR II critical domains. Conclusions: Whilst impairments in decision-making capacity may exist, most patients with a severe mental disorder, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are able to make rational decisions about their healthcare. Best practice strategies should incorporate interventions to help mentally ill patients grow into the voluntary and safe use of medications

The management and outcome for patients with chronic subdural hematoma: a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study in the United Kingdom

Symptomatic chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) will become an increasingly common presentation in neurosurgical practice as the population ages, but quality evidence is still lacking to guide the optimal management for these patients. The British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC) was established by neurosurgical trainees in 2012 to improve research by combining the efforts of trainees in each of the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland's neurosurgical units (NSUs). The authors present the first study by the BNTRC that describes current management and outcomes for patients with CSDH throughout the UK and Ireland. This provides a resource both for current clinical practice and future clinical research on CSDH

RESISTIRE D3.1 Summary report on mapping of quantitative indicators - cycle 1

This report provides an overview of the first cycle mapping of quantitative, comparative information on indicators that allow us to measure and monitor the economic, social and environmental impacts of COVID-19. Two types of mapping have been conducted, which provide us with a) European and b) national insights on the impact of COVID-19. The first mapping (European insights) looks at official secondary data sources at international and EU level, while the second mapping (national insights) concerns Rapid Assessment Surveys (RAS), which are studies conducted on the initiative of lobby groups, scientists or official agencies that provide fast, research-based assessments. The aim of the report is to provide analytical insights before the outbreak to identify baseline levels and compare this with data collected during the pandemic. It also sets the baseline for cycles two and three of the project, which will delve deeper into the issues highlighted in this first review and investigate the evolution of inequalities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic