Search

Background: Evidence from the UK from the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic showed that people with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) had higher rates of covid-19 mortality than people without ID. However, estimates of the magnitude of risk vary widely; different studies used different time periods; and only early stages of the pandemic have been analysed. Existing analyses of risk factors have also been limited. The objective of this study was to investigate covid-19 mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, and risk factors in people with ID in England up to the end of 2021. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all people with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or death involving covid-19. Datasets covering primary care, secondary care, covid-19 tests and vaccinations, prescriptions, and deaths were linked at individual level. Results: Covid-19 carries a disproportionately higher risk of death for people with ID, above their already higher risk of dying from other causes, in comparison to those without ID. Around 2,000 people with ID had a death involving covid-19 in England up to the end of 2021; approximately 1 in 180. The covid-19 standardized mortality ratio was 5.6 [95% CI 5.4, 5.9]. People with ID were also more likely to be hospitalised for covid-19 than people without ID. The main determinants of severe covid-19 outcomes (deaths and/or hospitalisations) in both populations were age, multimorbidity and vaccination status. The key factor responsible for the higher risk of severe covid-19 in the ID population was a much higher prevalence of multimorbidity in this population. AstraZeneca vaccine was slightly less effective in preventing severe covid-19 outcomes among people with ID than among people without ID. Conclusions: People with ID should be considered a priority group in future pandemics, such as shielding and vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the detection and prevention of elder financial abuse through the lens of a "professional bystander intervention model". The authors were interested in the decision cues that raise suspicions of financial abuse, how such abuse comes to the attention of professionals who do not have a statutory responsibility for safeguarding older adults, and the barriers to intervention. Design/methodology/approach – In-depth interviews were conducted using the critical incident technique. Thematic analysis was carried out on transcribed interviews. In total, 20 banking and 20 health professionals were recruited. Participants were asked to discuss real cases which they had dealt with personally. Findings – The cases described indicated that a variety of cues were used in coming to a decision that financial abuse was very likely taking place. Common to these cases was a discrepancy between what is normal and expected and what is abnormal or unexpected. There was a marked difference in the type of abuse noticed by banking and health professionals, drawing attention to the ways in which context influences the likelihood that financial abuse will be detected. The study revealed that even if professionals suspect abuse, there are barriers which prevent them acting. Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its use of the bystander intervention model to study the decision-making processes of professionals who are not explicitly charged with adult safeguarding. The study was also unique because real cases were under consideration. Hence, what the professionals actually do, rather than what they might do, was under investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]