Search

Background This study aims to use 30-day readmission rates to investigate the presumption that men and women with learning disabilities ( LDs, known internationally as intellectual disabilities) receive poorer quality hospital care than their non-disabled peers. Method A 12-month retrospective audit was conducted using Hospital Episode Statistics ( HES) at a single acute hospital in the East of England. This identified all in-patient admissions; admissions where the person concerned was recognised as having a LD; and all emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Additionally, the healthcare records of all patients identified as having a LD and readmitted within 30 days as a medical emergency were examined in order to determine whether or not these readmissions were potentially preventable. Results Over the study period, a total of 66 870 adults were admitted as in-patients, among whom 7408 were readmitted as medical emergencies within 30 days of discharge: a readmission rate of 11%. Of these 66 870 patients, 256 were identified as having a LD, with 32 of them experiencing at least one emergency readmission within 30 days: a readmission rate of 13%. When examined, the healthcare records pertaining to these 32 patients who had a total of 39 unique 30-day readmissions revealed that 69% ( n = 26) of these readmissions were potentially preventable. Conclusion Although overall readmission rates were similar for patients with LDs and those from the general population, patients with LDs had a much higher rate of potentially preventable readmissions when compared to a general population estimate from van Walraven et al. This suggests that there is still work to be done to ensure that this patient population receives hospital care that is both safe and of high quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Adults with intellectual disabilities ( ID) experience a wide range of eating, drinking and/or swallowing ( EDS) problems, for which they receive diverse mealtime support interventions. Previous research has estimated that dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) affects 8% of all adults with ID and that 15% require some form of mealtime support. People with ID (whether they require mealtime support or not) also experience a greater burden of ill health and die younger than their peers in the general population with no ID. Methods Using an exploratory, population-based cohort study design, we set out to examine health-related outcomes in adults with ID who receive mealtime support for any eating, drinking or swallowing problem, by establishing the annual incidence of healthcare use, EDS-related ill health, and all-cause mortality. This study was conducted in two counties in the East of England. Results In 2009, 142 adults with mild to profound ID and a need for any type of mealtime support were recruited for a baseline survey. At follow-up 1 year later, 127 individuals were alive, eight had died and seven could not be contacted. Almost all participants had one or more consultations with a general practitioner ( GP) each year (85-95%) and, in the first year, 20% reportedly had one or more emergency hospitalizations. Although their annual number of GP visits was broadly comparable with that of the general population, one-fifth of this population's primary healthcare use was directly attributable to EDS-related ill health. Respiratory infections were the most common cause of morbidity, and the immediate cause of all eight deaths, while concerns about nutrition and dehydration were surprisingly minor. Our participants had a high annual incidence of death (5%) and, with a standardized mortality ratio of 267, their observed mortality was more than twice that expected in the general population of adults with ID (not selected because of mealtime support for EDS problems). Conclusions All Annual Health Checks now offered to adults with ID should include questions about respiratory infections and EDS functioning, in order to focus attention on EDS problems in this population. This has the potential to reduce life-threatening illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) receive health care by proxy. It is family members and/or paid support staff who must recognise health problems, communicate with clinicians, and report the benefits, if any, of a particular treatment. At the same time international and national statutes protect and promote the right of people with disabilities to access the highest attainable standards of health on the basis of free and informed consent. Methods To consider the role of parent-proxies in the management of epilepsy in adult children with ID who are at risk of lacking capacity to make decisions about their health care we interviewed 21 mothers. Findings These mothers are not pursuing changes in treatment that might improve their son or daughter's epilepsy, nor are they willing to countenance changes in treatment. Clinicians concerned to build and sustain therapeutic alliances with these mothers, our evidence suggests, may well avoid going against their wishes. Discussion Our research highlights the interactional contingencies of a hitherto neglected three-way clinical relationship comprising parent-proxy, an adult at risk of lacking decision-making capacity, and a treating clinician. This is a relationship, our findings suggest, where little importance is attached to either patient consent, or involvement in treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities guarantees equality of political rights, including the right to vote and stand for election. The affirmation of these rights, first guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, raises an important question given the long-standing association between political rights and beliefs concerning the abilities of citizens to reason and act independently: how and to what degree can people identified as having intellectual disabilities participate in a defining act of the democratic process? Focused specifically on the right to vote, this paper addresses the question by (1) introducing the debates that have surrounded the voting rights of this population; and (2) reporting on recent attempts in Kenya, and in England and Wales, to promote voting by people with intellectual disabilities. It concludes by considering the effectiveness of the different approaches these countries have adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]