No / Based on research conducted during a large-scale European Commission project on international perspectives on positive/affirmative action measures, the authors provide a comparative analysis of the legal context and perceptions of the impact of positive action in the United Kingdom and the United States. The study adopted participatory methods including consensus workshops, interviews, and legal analysis to obtain data from those individuals responsible for designing and implementing positive action measures. Findings are discussed, conclusions drawn, and wide-ranging recommendations are made at governmental and organizational levels. The authors conclude by suggesting possible implications for policy and argue for widespread awareness-raising campaigns of both the need for positive action measures for disadvantaged groups and the benefits of such measures for wider society. They also recommend the adoption of a more coherent and collaborative approach to the utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of positive or affirmative action.

Yes / This paper provides an overview of the laws regulating positive action in the UK. It also presents key findings from a selection of research studies on positive action in the UK conducted between 2003 and 2009 by the Centre for Inclusion and Diversity at the University of Bradford, and provides examples of positive action drawn from these studies.

No / Based on research conducted during a large-scale European Commission project on international perspectives on positive/affirmative action measures, the authors provide a comparative analysis of the legal context and perceptions of the impact of positive action in the United Kingdom and the United States. The study adopted participatory methods including consensus workshops, interviews, and legal analysis to obtain data from those individuals responsible for designing and implementing positive action measures. Findings are discussed, conclusions drawn, and wide-ranging recommendations are made at governmental and organizational levels. The authors conclude by suggesting possible implications for policy and argue for widespread awareness-raising campaigns of both the need for positive action measures for disadvantaged groups and the benefits of such measures for wider society. They also recommend the adoption of a more coherent and collaborative approach to the utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of positive or affirmative action.

Yes / The full-text of this article will be released for public view at the end of the publisher embargo on 1 Feb 2017.

Yes / To update knowledge on individual radiographer contribution to plain-film reporting workloads; to assess whether there is scope to further increase radiographer reporting capacity within this area. Methods: Reporting radiographers were invited to complete an online survey. Invitations were posted to every acute National Health Service trust in the UK whilst snowball sampling was employed via a network of colleagues, ex-colleagues and acquaintances. Information was sought regarding the demographics, geographical location and anatomical and referral scope of practice. Results: A total of 259 responses were received. 15.1% and 7.7% of respondents are qualified to report chest and abdomen radiographs, respectively. The mean time spent reporting per week is 14.5 h (range 1–37.5). 23.6% of radiographers report only referrals from emergency departments whilst 50.6% of radiographers have limitations on their practice. Conclusion: The scope of practice of reporting radiographers has increased since previous studies; however, radiographer reporting of chest and abdomen radiographs has failed to progress in line with demand. There remain opportunities to increase radiographer capacity to assist the management of reporting backlogs. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to examine demographic factors of reporting radiographers across the UK and is one of the largest in-depth studies of UK reporting radiographers, at individual level, to date.

Yes / On the 8th of June 2017 the United Kingdom will go the polls. The NHS will be central to the campaign. This will not just be a campaign concerned about NHS funding it never really is, there are always so many other issues. However, it will be either be consciously or subconsciously about the nature of the NHS in the immediate foreseeable future.

No / Dementia is a global concern. Although effort is being put toward finding a cure, many advances have been made in ensuring excellence in dementia care. In the United Kingdom, the concept of person-centered dementia care has transformed what is expected for individuals with dementia. Now embraced in national policy in the United Kingdom, it was pioneered by Thomas Kitwood and Kathleen Bredin and driven by a con-cern for the quality of care for indi-viduals with dementia in care homes. The purpose of the current article is to describe key concepts of Kitwood’s pioneering work in person-centered dementia care and to use them to inform current community-based supports and services for individuals with dementia in their own homes, whether alone or with family carers. / Full text is unavailable due to publisher copyright restrictions.

No / Carers make a considerable contribution to the health and social care of sick or disabled people, reducing the strain on health and social care systems. This has been recognised through support mechanisms, including (in the UK) a payment for caring (Carer’s Allowance – CA). This article draws upon data from a study of carers receiving CA. Utilising a citizenship perspective, it examines respondents’ perspectives on their role in the UK and shows how CA provides not only financial support but also contributes to normative conceptualisations of citizenship. The data highlight the primacy of paid work in UK citizenship, as well as the stigma associated with receiving welfare benefits. The article concludes by claiming that changes to the UK benefit system need to take into account a ‘recognition’ aspect, reformulating what is considered a worthwhile contribution to society.

Yes / The purpose of this paper is to identify current UK screening practices prior to contrast-enhanced CT. To determine the patient management strategies to minimize the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) risk in outpatients. An invitation to complete an electronic survey was distributed to the CT managers of 174 UK adult National Health Service hospital trusts. The survey included questions related to local protocols and national guidance on which these are based. Details of the assessment of renal function prior to imaging and thresholds for contrast contraindication and patient management were also sought. A response rate of 47.1% was received. Almost all sites had a policy in place for contrast administration (n = 80/82; 97.6%). The majority of sites require a blood test on outpatients undergoing a contrast-enhanced CT scan (n = 75/82; 91.5%); however, some (15/75; 20.0%) sites only check the result in patients at high risk and a small number (7/82; 8.5%) of sites indicated that it was a referrer responsibility. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or serum creatinine (SCr) result threshold at which i.v. contrast was contraindicated varied and 19 different threshold levels of eGFR or SCr were identified, each leading to different prophylactic strategies. Inconsistency was noted in the provision of follow-up blood tests after contrast administration. The wide variation in practice reflects inconsistencies in published guidance. Evidence-based consensuses of which patients to test and subsequent risk thresholds will aid clinicians identify those patients in which the risk of CI-AKI is clinically significant but manageable. There is also a need to determine the value of the various prophylactic strategies, follow-up regimen and efficient service delivery pathways. This survey has identified that further work is required to define which patients are high risk, confirm those which require renal function testing prior to contrast administration and how best to manage patients at risk of CI-AKI. The role of new technologies within this service delivery pathway requires further investigation.

Yes / The UK Palliative Medicine Syllabus is critically evaluated to assess its relationship and relevance to contemporary palliative care policy and direction. Three criteria are employed for this review: (1) relevance to non-cancer dying, ageing, caregivers, and bereaved populations; (2) uptake and adoption of well-being models of public health alongside traditional illness and disease models of clinical understanding; and (3) uptake and integration of public health insights and methodologies for social support. We conclude that the current syllabus falls dramatically short on all 3 criteria. Suggestions are made for future consultation and revision.