Search

Data specifically comparing outcomes for people with and without intellectual disability is limited. This paper reports perceived health and wellbeing of older Australians resident in metropolitan and rural locations in New South Wales and Queensland. Respondents were community-residing individuals with intellectual disability and mainstream age peers [age = 60]. Measures included SF12; Cummings well-being scales; DSSI; Adverse Life Events; and financial hardship status. The sample was composed of 391 adults with intellectual disability and 920 age peers. Adults with intellectual disability were significantly more likely to note adverse life events, worse mental health, and lower levels of social support, but reported higher mean wellbeing scores and had higher scores for physical health. Results indicated higher likelihood of adults with intellectual disability reporting comparative disadvantage across multiple key areas when compared to age peers.

Data specifically comparing outcomes for people with and without intellectual disability is limited. This paper reports perceived health and wellbeing of older Australians resident in metropolitan and rural locations in New South Wales and Queensland. Respondents were community-residing individuals with intellectual disability and mainstream age peers [age ≥ 60]. Measures included SF12; Cummings well-being scales; DSSI; Adverse Life Events; and financial hardship status. The sample was composed of 391 adults with intellectual disability and 920 age peers. Adults with intellectual disability were significantly more likely to note adverse life events, worse mental health, and lower levels of social support, but reported higher mean wellbeing scores and had higher scores for physical health. Results indicated higher likelihood of adults with intellectual disability reporting comparative disadvantage across multiple key areas when compared to age peers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changing disease patterns and improved life expectancy have resulted in a growing cohort of older Australians with an intellectual disability, with the provision of end-of-life care to this group only recently emerging as a priority area. Particularly in rural settings, where the availability of both specialist and general local services may be limited, end-of-life care support remains under-explored. The current project aimed to specifically examine end-of-life care provision in rural areas, the focus of this article being individual quality-of-life during the end-of-life stage. The study used a focus group interview model with 22 rural disability support workers from either New South Wales or Queensland, who had direct experience in providing end-of-life care. An advisory committee, composed of people with intellectual disabilities, carers, and service providers, offered overall project guidance. Participants elaborated on factors that contributed to quality-of-life during end-of-life care. Verbatim transcripts of the focus groups were thematically analysed by the team, and three thematic categories identified: availability of services; individual needs; and untreated pain. Specifically, participants noted concerns about the unavailability of health services, inflexibility of funding support, artificial government barriers, and a widespread lack of pain relief for individuals. We conclude that end-of-life support people with intellectual disabilities in rural areas has to trade off the ongoing delivery of quality-of-life activities against the increasing need for health care, which itself is subject to accessibility issues, and which is exacerbated by the more general funding challenges seen across all locations with the National Disability Health Insurance implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although a 'person‐centred focus' is a legislated objective for both aged‐care and disability services sectors in Australia, evidence suggests limited translation into systems and practices due to entrenched silos. This paper proposes a Best Practice Framework to mitigate these silos. Methods: Mixed‐methods research comprising key informant interviews with major stakeholders across both sectors; a survey of people with/without intellectual disability aged 60+ years; qualitative in‐depth interviews; and survey of health professionals. Results: There is an urgent need to develop inter‐sectoral 'integrated care systems'. Key components include choice in accommodation; regular assessment of health and well‐being indicators; development and adoption of nationally consistent policies/standards across integrated aged‐ and disability‐care sectors; improved strategies for workforce planning; and upskilling of existing staff including place‐based collaboration. Conclusions: An integrated service model requires collaboration on broader public policy instruments, appropriate planning and resourcing. A strategic shift is required to ensure better quality person‐centred support systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]