Ideal models of good inpatient care for adults with intellectual disability: Lessons from England.

Background: In recent years, a significant proportion of inpatient facilities for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism has been de-commissioned in England, This has resulted in individuals with intellectual disabilities being sent to distant hospitals far away from their families and carers leading to challenges in follow-up, community care and interventions. The impact of de-institutionalisation, has often caused patient trauma, family distress and subsequent discharge difficulties. Not every individual with intellectual disabilities and/or autism requires inpatient care but inpatient care when needed has to be local, adequate and appropriate. Aims: To evaluate current evidence of utility of inpatient models for people with intellectual disabilities and outline best clinical practice. Method: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science were searched with key search terms. The search was conducted by the information specialist and identified abstracts screened further for inclusion criteria, methodological issues, and other appropriate characteristics. Twenty-three papers were included in the rapid review. Papers shortlisted had the inclusion criteria applied against the full text version independently by two reviewers. Disagreements regarding eligibility of studies was resolved by discussion and consensus within the project team. Key data related to in-patient models of care was extracted from the included papers, which included year of study, design, study objectives, target population, method/s tested, outcomes reported, country of study/studies, and results. Data extraction was performed by two reviewers and reviewed by the project team. Results: From the review of services for people with intellectual disabilities, we came across four broad models/frameworks/approaches. Evidence on what worked for inpatient service provision tended to be based on models developed and implemented locally. Conclusions: We make recommendations for the best clinical practice and standards. Both clinical service providers and policymakers need to be aware of specific needs of individuals with intellectual disability and/or autism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]