The authors show that context of sampling affects most relationships between intellectual disability (ID) and offending when the methods for measuring ID are held constant. The results also present several questions on the relationship between risk, services available in an area and referral to higher security.

BackgroundThe Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5).MethodsThe programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI).Key findingsPain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity.ConclusionsThe PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Changes in reported and observed challenging behaviour over a 10-month period were slight. The use of evidence-based behavioural technologies for the reduction of challenging behaviour may have led to better outcomes.

A longitudinal matched-groups design was used to examine the quality and costs of community-based residential supports to people with mental retardation and challenging behavior. Two forms of provision were investigated: noncongregate settings, where the minority of residents had challenging behavior, and congregate settings, where the majority of residents had challenging behavior. Data were collected for 25 people in each setting. We collected information through interviewing service personnel in each type of setting on the costs of service provision, the nature of support provided, and the quality of life of residents. We also conducted observations in each setting. Results suggest that noncongregate residential supports may be more cost effective than congregate residential supports.

Background There are no studies that have compared outcomes for staff in different types of supported accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. This study looked at stress, morale and intended job turnover in staff in two types of community-based residential supports: non-congregate settings where the minority of residents have challenging behaviour; and congregate settings where the majority of residents have challenging behaviour. Materials and methods A self-completion survey questionnaire was used to collect information on the basic characteristics of staff, levels of staff stress, job satisfaction and propensity to leave their employment. Results One hundred and fifty-seven questionnaires were returned from staff, the majority of whom were on fixed-term contracts. Congregate settings were not associated with higher levels of stress as might be assumed.Overall, over a quarter of staff reached criterion on the General Health Questionnaire-12 for experiencing emotional distress, and over a third were likely to actively seek new employment in the next year. The greatest perceived sources of stress were lack of resources and lack of staff support. The lowest level of satisfaction was with the rate of pay. Those in non-congregate settings reported greater perceived stress because of lack of procedures to deal with challenging behaviour. Conclusions High levels of intended staff turnover may be more due to job insecurity and lack of support than service user challenging behaviour. Employers seeking to reduce turnover should pay attention to basic pay and conditions, as well as staff training in appropriate methods for dealing with challenging behaviour.