A prospective study of hospital episodes of adults with intellectual disability

Abstract

Background Previous research has shown poor hospital experiences and dire outcomes for people with intellectual disability. The main objective of this study was to prospectively track episodes for adults with intellectual disability (ID) in Australian hospitals, with a focus on indications of the quality of care provided. Methods A prospective audit of hospital records over 35 months yielded quantitative data about patient characteristics, frequency and length of hospital episodes, diagnostic assessments and outcomes, postemergency department (ED) destinations and postdischarge recommendations. Fifty participants were recruited largely by identification on hospital ED entry. An audit of patients' hospital records was conducted towards the end of hospital episodes, using a tool developed for the study. Results Participants were mostly men (70%), aged 42.9 years on average, living mostly with family (46%) or in supported accommodation (44%). Of 157 recorded episodes, 96% started in ED, 85% required urgent or semi-urgent care and 62% were in the first 3 months of study participation. Average time in ED exceeded the 4-h national benchmark, met in 40% of episodes. One or more diagnostic assessments were

How do Australian mental health services use easy read to make information accessible for people with intellectual disability?

“…The importance of respectful relationships of support between people with intellectual disability, family, health care practitioners seen in this research reinforces the need for health service environments to foster such relationships. Studies in Australia and internationally have demonstrated the impact of the health care context on communication (Chinn, 2017 ; Iacono et al, 2020 ). Researchers and practitioners have called for systemic change to address healthcare structures that limit access to information for people with intellectual disability (Chinn & Rudall, 2021 ; Iacono et al, 2020 ; Kean, 2016 ; Newman, 2020 ).…”

Barriers to communication with people with developmental disabilities: A reflexive thematic analysis

“…People with Intellectual Disability and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism) experience substantial barriers in accessing quality healthcare. When compared with the general population, people with Intellectual Disability have more chronic and complex health conditions, greater rates of hospitalization, and complications following care (Iacono et al, 2020). In addition to greater mortality across all age groups, a recent study also highlighted a disparate rate of potentially preventable deaths (Trollor et al, 2017).…”

A survey of Indonesian nurses' educational experiences and self‐perceived capability to care for people with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder

“…People with developmental disabilities, including intellectual disability (ID) and autism (ASD), experience greater morbidity, chronic and complex health conditions, and negative healthcare experiences than those without developmental disabilities (Cashin et al., 2018; Iacono et al., 2020; Wilson & Charnock, 2017). Internationally, low levels of educational preparedness and confidence of nurses have been identified as a contributing factor to negative health outcomes for these cohorts (Appelgren et al., 2018; Desroches et al., 2019).…”

“…Considering the similar healthcare needs, complications and challenges of people with ID and/or ASD, this study focuses on three cohorts: people with ID, people with ASD and those with a dual diagnosis of both. People with ID and/or ASD are at substantial risk of chronic and complex comorbid health conditions, have a greater risk of mortality across the lifespan and greater need for hospitalization (Cashin et al., 2018; Iacono et al., 2020; Wilson & Charnock, 2017; Woolfenden et al., 2012). Internationally, it has been well documented that people with ID and/or ASD experience barriers to accessing quality healthcare, including greater instances of complications during and after care, less primary intervention to mitigate risk and issues with quality of care received due to diagnostic overshadowing (Cashin et al., 2018; Hwang et al., 2019; Trollor et al., 2017; Wilson & Charnock, 2017; Woolfenden et al., 2012).…”