Neurology and psychiatry have long been divided as subspecialities of medicine. However, the symptom overlap in central nervous system illness is unmistakable. Medical science has evolved, necessitating a neuropsychiatric approach that is more comprehensive. This editorial briefly outlines the history of neurology and psychiatry and the movement towards a new paradigm.

Mainstream psychiatric practice requires a solid grounding in neuroscience, an important part of the biopsychosocial model, allowing for holistic person-centred care. There have been repeated calls for better integration of neuroscience into training, although so far with less focus on implementation for life-long learning. We suggest that such training should be accessible and utilised by all psychiatrists, not solely those with a special interest in neuropsychiatry. By considering recent positive developments within the general psychiatry curricula and neuropsychiatric resource implementation, we propose strategies for how this can be progressed, minimising regional disparities within the growing world of virtual learning.

Many examinations are now delivered online using digital formats, the migration to which has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The MRCPsych theory examinations have been delivered in this way since Autumn 2020. The multiple choice question formats currently in use are highly reliable, but other formats enabled by the digital platform, such as very short answer questions (VSAQs), may promote deeper learning. Trainees often ask for a focus on core knowledge, and the absence of cueing with VSAQs could help achieve this. This paper describes the background and evidence base for VSAQs, and how they might be introduced. Any new question formats would be thoroughly piloted before appearing in the examinations and are likely to have a phased introduction alongside existing formats.

Functional non-epileptic attacks (FNEA) are seizure-like events occurring in the absence of epilepsy. Having had many different names over the years including dissociative convulsions and pseudo-seizures, they now fall in the borderland between neurology and psychiatry, often not accepted by either specialty. However, there is evidence that there is a high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in these patients and therefore it is likely that psychiatrists will come across patients with FNEA and they should know the broad principles of assessment and management.

We have provided a clinically based overview of the evidence regarding epidemiology, risk factors, clinical features, differentiation from epilepsy, prognosis, assessment and treatment.

By the end of this article, readers should be able to understand the difference between epileptic seizures and FNEA, know how to manage acute FNEA, and understand the principles of neuropsychiatric assessment and management of these patients, based on knowledge of the evidence base.

Behavioural changes associated with epilepsy can be challenging for patients and clinicians. Evidence suggests an association between aggression and epilepsy that involves various neurophysiological and neurochemical disturbances. Anti-epileptics have variable effects on behaviour and cognition that need consideration. Early detection and careful consideration of history, symptomatology and possible common comorbid psychiatric disorders is essential. Appropriate investigations should be considered to aid diagnosis, including electroencephalogram (EEG), video EEG telemetry and brain imaging. Optimising treatment of epilepsy, treatment of psychiatric comorbidities and behavioural management can have a major positive effect on patients' recovery and well-being.

Earl J, Pop O, Jefferies K, Agrawal N. Impact of neuropsychiatry screening in neurological in-patients: comparison with routine clinical practice

Background: It is now well recognised that the rate of psychiatric comorbidity is high in patients with neurological disorders. Psychiatric comorbidity has a significant impact on quality of life and often goes undetected in routine clinical practice.

Objectives: To compare the rate of detection of psychiatric illness in routine clinical practice with the prevalence of mental illness established using a dedicated screening programme at a regional neuroscience centre and to assess if the screening programme had any enduring impact on routine clinical practice after its completion.

Methods: Consecutive admissions to a neurology ward in the 3-month period before (n = 160) and after (n = 158) a dedicated neuropsychiatric screening programme was carried out were identified. Case notes were then reviewed to establish if symptoms of mental illness were identified by the treating neurologists and if patients were referred for neuropsychiatric assessment. Rates of detection of neuropsychiatric problems and rates of referral for treatment were compared with those identified during the screening programme.

Results: In routine clinical practice, over two 3-month study periods, psychiatric symptoms were identified in 23.7% of patients and only 10.6% received neuropsychiatric interventions. This is much lower as compared with rates identified (51.3%) and treated (51.3%) during dedicated screening. Detection of mood symptoms decreased from 14.7% pre-screening to 3.8% in the post-screening period.

Conclusion: Rate of detection and treatment of neuropsychiatric problems remain low in neurology in-patients in routine clinical practice. Neuropsychiatric screening is effective but does not have sustained effect once it stops. Hence we suggest that active ongoing screening should be incorporated into routine practice.