Dataset Information

Understanding inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes following hospital admission for people with intellectual disability compared to the general population: a matched cohort study in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study explores the hospital journey of patients with intellectual disabilities (IDs) compared with the general population after admission for COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic (when demand on inpatient resources was high) to identify disparities in treatment and outcomes.

Design

Matched cohort study; an ID cohort of 506 patients were matched based on age, sex and ethnicity with a control group using a 1:3 ratio to compare outcomes from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK.

Setting

Admissions for COVID-19 from UK hospitals; data on symptoms, severity, access to interventions, complications, mortality and length of stay were extracted.

Interventions

Non-invasive respiratory support, intubation, tracheostomy, ventilation and admission to intensive care units (ICU).

Results

Subjective presenting symptoms such as loss of taste/smell were less frequently reported in ID patients, whereas indicators of more severe disease such as altered consciousness and seizures were more common. Controls had higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors, asthma, rheumatological disorder and smoking. ID patients were admitted with higher respiratory rates (median=22, range=10-48) and were more likely to require oxygen therapy (35.1% vs 28.9%). Despite this, ID patients were 37% (95% CI 13% to 57%) less likely to receive non-invasive respiratory support, 40% (95% CI 7% to 63%) less likely to receive intubation and 50% (95% CI 30% to 66%) less likely to be admitted to the ICU while in hospital. They had a 56% (95% CI 17% to 102%) increased risk of dying from COVID-19 after they were hospitalised and were dying 1.44 times faster (95% CI 1.13 to 1.84) compared with controls.

Conclusions

There have been significant disparities in healthcare between people with ID and the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have contributed to excess mortality in this group.

SUBMITTER: Baksh RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491000 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected people with intellectual disability disproportionately. Existing data does not provide enough information to understand factors associated with increased deaths in those with intellectual disability. Establishing who is at high risk is important in developing prevention strategies, given risk factors or comorbidities in people with intellectual disability may be different to those in the general population. AIMS:To identify comorbidities, demographic and clinical factors of those individuals with intellectual disability who have died from COVID-19. METHOD:An observational descriptive case series looking at deaths because of COVID-19 in people with intellectual disability was conducted. Along with established risk factors observed in the general population, possible specific risk factors and comorbidities in people with intellectual disability for deaths related to COVID-19 were examined. Comparisons between mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability subcohorts were undertaken. RESULTS:Data on 66 deaths in individuals with intellectual disability were analysed. This group was younger (mean age 64 years) compared with the age of death in the general population because of COVID-19. High rates of moderate-to-profound intellectual disability (n = 43), epilepsy (n = 29), mental illness (n = 29), dysphagia (n = 23), Down syndrome (n = 20) and dementia (n = 15) were observed. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study exploring associations between possible risk factors and comorbidities found in COVID-19 deaths in people with intellectual disability. Our data provides insight into possible factors for deaths in people with intellectual disability. Some of the factors varied between the mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability groups. This highlights an urgent need for further systemic inquiry and study of the possible cumulative impact of these factors and comorbidities given the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the incidence of recorded mental illness and challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability in UK primary care and to explore the prescription of psychotropic drugs in this group.DesignCohort study.Setting571 general practices contributing data to The Health Improvement Network clinical database.Participants33,016 adults (58% male) with intellectual disability who contributed 211,793 person years' data.Main outcome measuresExisting and new records of mental illness, challenging behaviour, and psychotropic drug prescription.Results21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. During follow-up, the rate of new cases of mental illness in people without a history at cohort entry was 262 (95% confidence interval 254 to 271) per 10,000 person years and the rate of challenging behaviour was 239 (231 to 247) per 10,000 person years. The rate of new psychotropic drug prescription in those without a previous history of psychotropic drug treatment was 518 (503 to 533) per 10,000 person years. Rates of new recording of severe mental illness declined by 5% (95% confidence interval 3% to 7%) per year (P<0.001), and new prescriptions of antipsychotics declined by 4% (3% to 5%) per year P<0.001) between 1999 and 2013. New prescriptions of mood stabilisers also decreased significantly. The rate of new antipsychotic prescribing was significantly higher in people with challenging behaviour (incidence rate ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 2.27; P<0.001), autism (1.79, 1.56 to 2.04; P<0.001), and dementia (1.42, 1.12 to 1.81; P<0.003) and in those of older age, after control for other sociodemographic factors and comorbidity.ConclusionsThe proportion of people with intellectual disability who have been treated with psychotropic drugs far exceeds the proportion with recorded mental illness. Antipsychotics are often prescribed to people without recorded severe mental illness but who have a record of challenging behaviour. The findings suggest that changes are needed in the prescribing of psychotropics for people with intellectual disability. More evidence is needed of the efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs in this group, particularly when they are used for challenging behaviour.

Project description:BACKGROUND:General Practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the healthcare trajectory of patients. If the patient experiences problems that are typically non-life-threatening, such as the symptoms of post-intensive-care syndrome, the GP will be the first healthcare professional they consult. The primary aim of this study is to gain insight in the frequency of GP consultations during the year before hospital admission and the year after discharge for ICU survivors and a matched control group from the general population. The secondary aim of this study is to gain insight into differences between subgroups of the ICU population with respect to the frequency of GP consultations. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study, combining a national health insurance claims database and a national quality registry for ICUs. Clinical data of patients admitted to an ICU in 2013 were enriched with claims data from the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Poisson regression was used to assess the differences in frequency of GP consultations between the ICU population and the control group. RESULTS:ICU patients have more consultations with GPs during the year before and after admission than individuals in the control group. In the last four weeks before admission, ICU patients have 3.58 (CI 3.37; 3.80) times more GP consultations than the control group, and during the first four weeks after discharge they have 4.98 (CI 4.74; 5.23) times more GP consultations. In the year after hospital discharge ICU survivors have an increased GP consultation rate compared to the year before their hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS:Close to hospital admission and shortly after hospital discharge, the frequency of GP consultations substantially increases in the population of ICU survivors. Even a year after hospital discharge, ICU survivors have increased GP consultation rates. Therefore, GPs should be well informed about the problems ICU patients suffer after discharge, in order to provide suitable follow-up care.