A survey of the experience of living with dementia in a dementia-friendly community.

Dementia-friendly communities (DFCs) are one way in which people living with dementia can be supported to be active, engaged and valued citizens. Quantitative evaluations of the experiences of those with dementia living within these communities are scarce. This article reports findings from a survey of people living with dementia on their experience of living in a DFC. Two-hundred and forty people living with dementia completed a cross-sectional survey in six DFCs across England. Around half of respondents reported they were aware they were living in a DFC. Being aware of living in a DFC was associated with taking part in leisure activities (p = 0.042), community centre attendance (p = 0.009), being involved in organised activities or groups (p < 0.001), feeling understood (p = 0.008), and feeling valued for their own contributions to the community (p = 0.002). This study illustrates the contribution that surveys can make in facilitating the expression of views and experiences of people living with dementia. Awareness of living within a DFC is associated with greater involvement in, and belonging to, the wider community.

Dementia Friendly Communities in England: A scoping study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of Dementia Friendly Communities (DFCs) across England in order to inform a national evaluation of their impact on the lives of those affected by dementia. METHODS: DFCs in England were identified through online searches and Alzheimer's Society records. A subsample (n = 100) were purposively selected for in-depth study based on online searches and, where necessary, follow-up telephone calls. Data collection and analysis were guided by a pilot evaluation tool for DFCs that addressed how DFCs are organised and resourced and how their impact is assessed. The evidence was predominantly qualitative, in addition to some descriptive quantitative information. RESULTS: Of 284 DFCs identified, 251 were defined by geographical location, while 33 were communities of interest. Among 100 sampled DFCs, 89 had been set up or started activities following policy endorsement of DFCs in 2012. In the resourcing of DFCs, statutory agencies and charities played an important role. Among DFC activities, awareness raising was cited most commonly. There was some evidence of involvement of people living with dementia in organisational and operational aspects of DFCs. Approaches to evaluation varied, with little evidence of findings having effected change. CONCLUSIONS: DFCs are characterised by variation in type, resourcing, and activities. England has policy endorsement and a recognition system for DFCs. These can be important catalysts for initiation and growth. A systematic approach to evaluation is lacking. This would enable DFCs to be consistent in how they demonstrate progress and how they enable people living with dementia to live well.

The place for dementia-friendly communities in England and its relationship with epidemiological need.

OBJECTIVES: The dementia-friendly community (DFC) initiative was set up to enable people living with dementia to remain active, engaged, and valued members of society. Dementia prevalence varies nationally and is strongly associated with the age and sex distribution of the population and level of social deprivation. As part of a wider project to evaluate DFCs, we examined whether there is a relationship between provision of DFCs and epidemiological need. METHODS: Dementia-friendly communities were identified through the formal recognition process of DFC status by the Alzheimer's Society and mapped against areas defined by English Clinical Commissioning Groups. We tested whether provision of a DFC was associated with: (1) dementia prevalence, (2) number of known cases, and (3) known plus estimated number of unknown cases. RESULTS: Of the 209 English Clinical Commissioning Group areas, 115 had at least one DFC. The presence of a DFC was significantly associated with number of known dementia cases (mean difference = 577; 95% CI, 249 to 905; P = 0.001) and unknown dementia cases (mean difference = 881; 95% CI, 349 to 1413; P = 0.001) but not prevalence (mean difference = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.16; P = 0.61). This remains true when controlling for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that DFC provision is consistent with epidemiological-based need. Dementia-friendly communities are located in areas where they can have the greatest impact. A retrospective understanding of how DFCs have developed in England can inform how equivalent international initiatives might be designed and implemented.

Long-term follow-up of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for initial anterior shoulder dislocations in young athletes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known of the long-term results of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for first-time traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. HYPOTHESIS: Acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for first-time traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations will provide good results at long-term follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The authors evaluated a cohort of young patients who sustained first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocations and were acutely treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair using bioabsorbable tacks. Subjective outcome measures were obtained at a mean follow-up of 11.7 years (range, 9.1-13.9 years). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (40 shoulders) were available of the original cohort of 49 shoulders (82%). Two of the 9 who were lost to follow-up had revision surgery before being lost and are carried forward in the calculations of recurrent instability and revision surgery but are not included in the calculation of the functional scores. The mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation was 91.7, the mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score was 371.7, the mean subjective Rowe score was 25.3, the mean Simple Shoulder Test was 11.1, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Society score was 90.9, the mean Short Form-36 Physical Component score was 94.4, and the mean Tegner score was 6.5. Six patients sustained recurrent dislocations for a redislocation rate of 14.3%. Nine patients (21.4%) reported experiencing subluxation events. Six patients (14.3%) underwent revision stabilization surgery. CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for first-time traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations resulted in excellent subjective function and return to athletics in young, active patients with an acceptable rate of recurrence and reoperation.