Search

Background - There are few large scale studies about the nature and extent of the actual use of standardised assessments for Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis in clinical practice. This study compares and contrasts practice in diagnostic services for both adults and children.\ud \ud Method - We conducted an analysis of retrospective case notes from 150 cases (70 adult, 80 children) assessed for Autism Spectrum Disorder by 16 diagnostic services.\ud \ud Results - We found differences between adult and child services in staff training and use of standardised assessment during diagnosis. All child services had staff trained in and regularly using standardised assessments. Most adult services had staff trained in using instruments but only half used them regularly. Administration of standardised ASD assessments was ten times more likely in children than in adults (OR = 10.1; CI = 4.24, 24.0). Child services selected the ADOS as the standardised tool and adult services selected the DISCO, with very little overlap. Decisions to administer standardised tools were not based on case complexity but rather the same process was applied to all referrals within a service. The three recommended components of assessment (clinical history, clinical observation and contextual information) were included for the majority of cases, although clinical observation was more frequently used with children than with adults.\ud \ud Conclusions - Based on the findings, we suggest a need for a wider range of appropriate assessments for use with adults, particularly those with an intellectual disability and for further research into the reasons behind the choices clinicians make during the assessment process. For child services in Scotland, there is a need for more training in use of current diagnostic interviews. Clinicians did not vary tools used based on complexity, suggesting that this is a notion still to be clearly defined and operationalised in clinical decision making about the use of standardised assessments.

Background\ud \ud This paper reports on the development of child and adult Action Plans for Autism Spectrum Disorder to address the problem of delayed diagnosis and lengthy waiting times. Evidence used in the development of action plans was gathered from a sequential mixed methods study to further understand the reasons for the long waiting time and potential solutions. This is the first published investigation, from the perspective of diagnosing professional teams, of the reasons for delays, which also generates solutions.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Ninety five clinicians from 8 child and 8 adult services attended 16 focus groups to explore clinicians’ views on a) reducing the wait for diagnosis and b) providing a good quality diagnostic process with good adherence to clinical guidelines. During focus groups, quantitative data were fed back, used to frame discussions and facilitate solution focused action planning with each service. Sixteen local action plans were synthesised to create an ASD Action Plan for children and an ASD Action Plan for adults.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Key solutions are proposed to support the reduction of the wait for diagnostic assessment, through reducing non-attendance rates, reducing inappropriate referrals, developing efficient working and communication and improving the effectiveness of care pathways. These are presented in actions plans for use by clinical teams.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud The first step in addressing the clinical challenge of increased wait for diagnostic assessment of ASD is understanding the complex and multi-factorial reasons for delays. The action plans developed here through systematic enquiry and synthesis may provide clinical diagnostic teams with evidence based guidance on common challenges and solutions to guide future quality improvement programmes. Future research to evaluate whether using Action Plans leads to a reduction in waiting times would be of value.

Background:\ud This study explores the extent to which recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 142 guidelines, section 9.2 (relating to identification, assessment and diagnosis) reflected existing routine clinical practice in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosing services in Scotland; and whether there was a significant relation between routine practice which more closely reflected these recommendations and waiting times.\ud \ud Method:\ud A cross-sectional, retrospective case note analysis of recently diagnosed adults, in eight ASD services across Scotland.\ud \ud Results:\ud The study found that the existing practice of the participating services was consistent with 14 (maximum number) of the included recommendations in at least half of cases analysed (range 37–70 cases) and was not related to increased total waiting time for diagnosis.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud The results, based only on the included recommendations, suggest that the section 9.2 recommendations can be integrated into clinical practice in Scotland with relative ease and that it is unlikely to have a negative impact on waiting times.