Search

The English Learning Disabilities Mortality Review (LeDeR) programme was established in 2015 to improve data collection regarding the deaths of people with a learning disability. Since then, the programme has been introduced and expanded across England covering all 7 distinct regions and many deaths of people with a learning disability have been notified and reviewed with the findings presented in the annual reports. The programme's sixth annual report focuses on the completed reviews of deaths of people with a learning disability that occurred in 2021 and uses comparisons with the deaths occurring in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

This, the sixth annual report utilising data from LeDeR reviews, focuses on the reviews of deaths of people with a learning disability that occurred predominantly in 2021 and uses comparisons with the deaths occurring in 2018, 2019 and 2020. This has allowed us to identify trends over time and highlight the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020 and 2021.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is the process in which healthcare professionals and patients jointly discuss and decide which care and treatment policy is to be followed. The importance of SDM is increasingly being recognised across health settings, including palliative care. Little is known about SDM with people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in the last phase of life. This review aimed to explore to which extent and in which w

Background: There is evidence that people with intellectual disabilities experience healthcare inequalities, including access to specialist palliative care, but to date, there has not been a systematic review of empirical evidence. Aim: To identify the palliative care needs of adults with intellectual disabilities and the barriers and facilitators they face in accessing palliative care. Design: Systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42019138974). Data sources: Five databases were searched in June 2019 (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane library and CINAHL) along with hand searches and a search of the grey literature. All study designs were included. Results: A total of 52 studies were identified, all of which were conducted in high-income countries, the majority in the United Kingdom (n = 28). From a total of 2970 participants across all studies, only 1% were people with intellectual disabilities and 1.3% were family members; the majority (97%) were health/social care professionals. Identified needs included physical needs, psychosocial and spiritual needs, and information and communication needs. Barriers and facilitators were associated with education (e.g. staff knowledge, training and experience), communication (e.g. staff skill in assessing and addressing needs of people with communication difficulties), collaboration (e.g. importance of sustained multidisciplinary approach) and health and social care delivery (e.g. staffing levels, funding and management support). Conclusion: This review highlights the specific problems in providing equitable palliative care for adults with intellectual disabilities, but there is a lack of research into strategies to improve practice. This should be prioritised using methods that include people with intellectual disabilities and families. © The Author(s) 2020.

Background: There is evidence that people with intellectual disabilities experience healthcare inequalities, including access to specialist palliative care, but to date, there has not been a systematic review of empirical evidence. Aim: To identify the palliative care needs of adults with intellectual disabilities and the barriers and facilitators they face in accessing palliative care. Design: Systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42019138974). Data sources: Five databases were searched in June 2019 (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane library and CINAHL) along with hand searches and a search of the grey literature. All study designs were included. Results: A total of 52 studies were identified, all of which were conducted in high-income countries, the majority in the United Kingdom (n = 28). From a total of 2970 participants across all studies, only 1% were people with intellectual disabilities and 1.3% were family members; the majority (97%) were health/social care professionals. Identified needs included physical needs, psychosocial and spiritual needs, and information and communication needs. Barriers and facilitators were associated with education (e.g. staff knowledge, training and experience), communication (e.g. staff skill in assessing and addressing needs of people with communication difficulties), collaboration (e.g. importance of sustained multidisciplinary approach) and health and social care delivery (e.g. staffing levels, funding and management support). Conclusion: This review highlights the specific problems in providing equitable palliative care for adults with intellectual disabilities, but there is a lack of research into strategies to improve practice. This should be prioritised using methods that include people with intellectual disabilities and families. © The Author(s) 2020.

Background: Empirical knowledge around palliative care provision and needs of people with intellectual disabilities is extremely limited, as is the availability of research resources, including expertise and funding. This paper describes a consultation process that sought to develop an agenda for research priorities for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. Methods: A two-day workshop was convened, attended by 16 academics and clinicians in the field of palliative care and intellectual disability from six European countries. The first day consisted of round- table presentations and discussions about the current state of the art, research challenges and knowledge gaps. The second day was focused on developing consensus research priorities with 12 of the workshop participants using nominal group technique, a structured method which involved generating a list of research priorities and ranking them in order of importance. Results: A total of 40 research priorities were proposed and collapsed into eleven research themes. The four most important research themes were: investigating issues around end of life decision making; mapping the scale and scope of the issue; investigating the quality of palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities, including the challenges in achieving best practice; and developing outcome measures and instruments for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: The proposal of four major priority areas and a range of minor themes for future research in intellectual disability, death, dying and palliative care will help researchers to focus limited resources and research expertise on areas where it is most needed and support the building of collaborations. The next steps are to cross validate these research priorities with people with intellectual disabilities, carers, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders across Europe; to validate them with local and national policy mak

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Not much is known about Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation (DNAR) decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). The aim of this study was to clarify the problems and pitfalls of non-emergency DNAR decision-making for people with IDs, from the perspective of ID physicians. METHODS: This qualitative study was based on semi-structured individual interviews, focus group interviews and an expert meeting, all recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Forty ID physicians and trainees were interviewed about problems, pitfalls and dilemmas of DNAR decision-making for people with IDs in the Netherlands. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory procedures. RESULTS: The core category identified was 'Patient-related considerations when issuing DNAR orders'. Within this category, medical considerations were the main contributory factor for the ID physicians. Evaluation of quality of life was left to the relatives and was sometimes a cause of conflicts between physicians and relatives. The category of 'The decision-maker role' was as important as that of 'The decision procedure in an organisational context'. The procedure of issuing a non-emergency DNAR order and the embedding of this procedure in the health care organisation were important for the ID physicians. CONCLUSION: The theory we developed clarifies that DNAR decision-making for people with IDs is complex and causes uncertainties. This theory offers a sound basis for training courses for physicians to deal with uncertainties regarding DNAR decision-making, as well as a method for advance care planning. Health care organisations are strongly advised to implement a procedure regarding DNAR decision-making.

BACKGROUND Empirical knowledge around palliative care provision and needs of people with intellectual disabilities is extremely limited, as is the availability of research resources, including expertise and funding. This paper describes a consultation process that sought to develop an agenda for research priorities for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. METHODS A two-day workshop was convened, attended by 16 academics and clinicians in the field of palliative care and intellectual disability from six European countries. The first day consisted of round-table presentations and discussions about the current state of the art, research challenges and knowledge gaps. The second day was focused on developing consensus research priorities with 12 of the workshop participants using nominal group technique, a structured method which involved generating a list of research priorities and ranking them in order of importance. RESULTS A total of 40 research priorities were proposed and collapsed into eleven research themes. The four most important research themes were: investigating issues around end of life decision making; mapping the scale and scope of the issue; investigating the quality of palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities, including the challenges in achieving best practice; and developing outcome measures and instruments for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSIONS The proposal of four major priority areas and a range of minor themes for future research in intellectual disability, death, dying and palliative care will help researchers to focus limited resources and research expertise on areas where it is most needed and support the building of collaborations. The next steps are to cross-validate these research priorities with people with intellectual disabilities, carers, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders across Europe; to validate them with local and national policy makers t

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Not much is known about the process of end-of-life decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities. Aim: To clarify the process of end-of-life decision-making for people with intellectual disabilities from the perspective of patient representatives. Design: A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory procedures. Participants: We interviewed 16 patient representatives after the deaths of 10 people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands. Results: The core category 'Deciding for someone else' describes the context in which patient representatives took end-of-life decisions. The patient representatives felt highly responsible for the outcomes. They had not involved the patients in the end-of-life decision-making process, nor any professionals other than the doctor. The categories of 'Motives' and 'Support' were connected to the core category of 'Deciding for someone else'. 'Motives' refers to the patient representatives' ideas about quality of life, prevention from suffering, patients who cannot understand the burden of interventions and emotional reasons reported by patient representatives. 'Support' refers to the support that patient representatives wanted the doctors to give to them in the decision-making process. Conclusions: From the perspective of the patient representatives, the process of end-of-life decision-making can be improved by ensuring clear roles and an explicit description of the tasks and responsibilities of all participants. Regular discussion between everyone involved including people with intellectual disabilities themselves can improve knowledge about each other's motives for end-of-decisions and can clarify expectations towards each other.