UNASSIGNED: Despite the high unmet need for effective AT provision, multiple service delivery models across different countries, and a shortage of personnel trained in this field, no widely useable and accepted Assistive Technology (AT) service provision guidelines currently exist. This review aims to provide an overview of the literature regarding AT service provision guidelines to inform the development of globally useable AT provision guidance, aligned with contemporary global initiatives to improve access to AT.
UNASSIGNED: The rapid scoping review method used a two-tiered approach to identifying relevant publications: (1) systematic search of academic databases (Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar); (2) consultation with international AT organisations and experts. The search was conducted in March 2023 with no date limitations. Analysis was guided by the TIDE-funded HEART research on quality AT provision and service delivery processes in Europe, as well as the WHO-GATE 5 P framework for strengthening access to AT.
UNASSIGNED: 35 publications were identified from various countries, and directed at differing assistive products, personnel, and provision contexts. No established guidelines for AT service provision currently exist. However, despite the variety in contexts, the range of assistive products and the range of stakeholders to whom guidelines are directed, several key service delivery steps were identified that may form part of such guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: This review offers a strong starting point for developing guidance for AT provision to meet global needs. Careful consideration of vocabulary, process, and application to the diversity of assistive products is recommended in systematizing globally applicable guidance.
Guidelines offer accepted benchmarks for clinical practice.Evidence-based guidelines ensure consistent and appropriate interventions, including assistive technology provision.The evidence suggests global guidance is required, and a substantial evidence base can be drawn upon to formulate such guidelines.

Background: Despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help. Methods: A group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters. Results: Cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD. Conclusions: Evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a strain on many aspects of health care including the provision of dialysis. Two categories of patients have had the greatest impact on dialysis capacity. Those with COVID-19-related acute kidney injury and those chronic dialysis patients who required isolation or cohort dialysis because of the pandemic. Limited information on incidence hampers capacity planning and the rapid change in demand provides further challenges. In the 4 weeks after our first patient, the incidence of confirmed infection in our dialysis population has been 5.1%. By the third week, hemodialysis had to be provided in critical care as the in-house capacity for hemofiltration had been overwhelmed. The interventions that enabled these needs to be met are detailed in this paper alongside a review of international recommendations and how they have been adapted to meet local pressures.

Purpose: We aimed to develop a stroke-vision care pathway for stroke survivors with visual impairment.Methods: A literature review searched key electronic bibliographic databases for care pathways related to stroke/vision. Two focus group meetings using semi-structured/nominal group technique reached consensus on items relevant for inclusion in a stroke-vision care pathway. Following the development of the pathway, we obtained feedback through consultation with patient and professional groups.Results: The literature review identified two care pathways relevant to acute stroke and generic vision disorders. Outputs from focus groups related to how stroke survivors present with vision problems; the time points at which stroke survivors present with vision symptoms; the relevance of different types of visual condition to different vision services; the importance of support services supplementary to hospital services and; the importance of key resources to promote awareness of vision problems in stroke survivors. Refinement of the pathway considered time duration from stroke onset, reporting of symptoms to services, and signposting/referrals required dependent on visual condition type.Conclusions: This new stroke-vision care pathway is a process pathway describing potential options for stroke survivors with visual impairment to access health care and obtain appropriate referral(s) to vision services relevant to their specific vision problem(s).IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONVisual impairment is a common consequence of stroke.It is imperative that those who care for stroke survivors are aware of the visual consequences of stroke and make the appropriate referrals for vision and support services.The stroke-vision care pathway is a process pathway that describes the potential options for stroke survivors with visual impairment to access health care and obtain the appropriate referral(s) to vision services relevant to their specific vision problem(s).The stroke-vision care pathway is available (free to download) from the VISION research unit (www.vision-research.co.uk) website and available as supplemental information with this publication.

In recent years, working time restrictions and a restructuring of postgraduate surgical training have resulted in increased reliance on emergency cross-cover (ECC)--the provision of emergency care by a doctor trained or training in a different specialty to that which they are requested to assess or manage. There are increasing concerns surrounding the provision of ECC, particularly regarding appropriate supervision of trainees and in turn their competence, experience and confidence in dealing with surgical problems of outside their own specialty. Surgical training has failed to keep pace with workforce changes and in this document we outline the key principles of providing safe ECC. In particular this includes the medico-legal implications of providing such cover outside a surgical trainee\'s normal area of practice, particularly without previous experience or means for regular skills practice and up-dating. We report the findings of an ASiT snapshot survey that demonstrates concerns surrounding existing cross-cover arrangements. Variable access to senior support, together with varied willingness to provide this, and a paucity of specific training opportunities for trainees required to provide cross-cover were highlighted. These have the potential to promote variability in patient care and resource use by those providing care outside of their usual specialty. This document provides consensus recommendations to address these issues, including clarification of curricula and improved provision of training for, and supervision of, trainees who are expected to deliver cross-cover.