Purpose Intellectual disability (ID) is prevalent in 1 per cent of the population. Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) affects up to 5 per cent of the general population of adult women. Identification of PMS is challenging in women with ID due to differences in communication. Management of PMS in the ID population requires careful consideration of baseline function, co-existing mental and physical health problems, drug interactions as well as complex ethical considerations. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Prospero-registered systematic review (CRD42019119398) of papers exploring the diagnosis and management of patients with PMS and ID (n=414). In total, 35 relevant titles were identified and 27 full text papers were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 10 studies for final qualitative analysis. Findings Ten original research papers were included. There are no standardised symptom criteria for diagnosis of PMS in women with ID. Studies relied on observer-reported data. All papers demonstrated higher rates of PMS in women with ID compared with the general adult population. Management was not standardised and varied between centres. Mainstays of treatment included non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, combined oral contraceptive pills and intramuscular progesterone. Newer evidence suggests levonorgestrel intrauterine systems may be appropriate. There was no quantitative method of establishing success of management. Practical implications A modified symptom diary should be used for diagnosis in this population. Differentiation between cyclical behavioural change due to pain vs mood disturbance remains challenging. Conservative, psychological and medical management should be the mainstay of treatment, with surgery considered in exceptional cases. Originality/value This paper demonstrates the current limited evidence for the management of PMS in women with a diagnosis of ID and offers an overview of the current options for managing these patients’ symptoms.

Background: Inter-hospital communication frequently requires mediation via a switchboard. Identifying and eliminating switchboard inefficiencies may improve patient care. Methods: All 175 acute hospital switchboards in England were contacted six times. Call contents and duration were recorded. No clinician calls or bleeps were connected. Results: The mean delay before contacting a switchboard operative was 55±46 seconds. 115 hospitals (66%) used automated switchboards; 34 of these (30%) had infection control messages. Robot operators introduced an additional 40 second delay versus humans (mean 70.3±28 versus 29.8±23 seconds, p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified robot operators (HR 5.1, p<0.0001) and infection control messages (HR 2.9, p=0.003) as predictors of delays over 60 seconds. Conclusions: There are significant avoidable delays in contacting switchboard operatives across England. Quality improvement is underway.