Dataset Information

Systemic safety inequities for people with learning disabilities: a qualitative integrative analysis of the experiences of English health and social care for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Failures in care for people with learning disabilities have been repeatedly highlighted and remain an international issue, exemplified by a disparity in premature death due to poor quality and unsafe care. This needs urgent attention. Therefore, the aim of the study was to understand the care experiences of people with learning disabilities, and explore the potential patient safety issues they, their carers and families raised.

Methods

Two data sources exploring the lived experience of care for people with learning disabilities were synthesised using an integrative approach, and explored using reflexive thematic analysis. This comprised two focus groups with a total of 13 people with learning disabilities and supportive staff, and 377 narratives posted publicly via the feedback platform Care Opinion.

Results

The qualitative exploration highlighted three key themes. Firstly, health and social care systems operated with varying levels of rigidity. This contributed to an inability to effectively cater to; complex and individualised care needs, written and verbal communication needs and needs for adequate time and space. Secondly, there were various gaps and traps within systems for this population. This highlighted the importance of care continuity, interoperability and attending to the variation in support provision from professionals. Finally, essential 'dependency work' was reliant upon social capital and fulfilled by paid and unpaid caring roles to divergent extents, however, advocacy provided an additional supportive safety net.

Conclusions

A series of safety inequities have been identified for people with learning disabilities, alongside potential protective buffers. These include; access to social support and advocacy, a malleable system able to accommodate for individualised care and communication needs, adequate staffing levels, sufficient learning disabilities expertise within and between care settings, and the interoperability of safety initiatives. In order to attend to the safety inequities for this population, these factors need to be considered at a policy and organisational level, spanning across health and social care systems. Findings have wide ranging implications for those with learning disabilities, their carers and families and health and social care providers, with the potential for international learning more widely.

SUBMITTER: Ramsey L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8795982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsFamily carers supporting an individual with psychosis often experience poorer mental health, however, little is known about specific risk factors among these carers. We investigated the associations between demographic, caregiving characteristics and mental health outcomes in family carers supporting an individual with psychosis and compared carers' outcomes with general population norms.MethodsWe analysed baseline data from the COPe-support randomised controlled trial of online psychoeducation and peer support for adult carers supporting an individual with psychosis between 2018 and 2020. We collected carers' demographic and health outcome data, including wellbeing using Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS as primary outcome), quality of life using EQ-5D-5L and caregiving experience assessed with Experience of Caregiving Inventory. We tested associations between carers' demographic and caregiving characteristics for each outcome in turn and meta-analysed carers' WEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L with Health Survey England (HSE) general population data from 2016 and 2017, respectively.ResultsThe 407 carers of people with psychosis had a mean WEMWBS score of 42.2 (s.d. 9.21) and their overall weighted pooled WEMWBS score was 7.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.6 to -6.0, p < 0.01) lower than the HSE general population sample, indicating carers have poorer mental wellbeing by more than double the minimum clinically important difference of 3 points on WEMWBS. Among all caring relationships, partners had poorer wellbeing compared to parents with lower WEMWBS score (-6.8, -16.9 to 3.3, p = 0.03). Single carers had significantly poorer wellbeing (-3.6, -5.6 to -1.5, p < 0.01) and a more negative caregiving experience than those who were cohabiting. Spending more than 35 h per week caregiving increased carers' negative experience significantly (p = 0.01).ConclusionCarers of people with psychosis have poorer mental health than non-carers. Partners, lone carers and those spending more than 35 h per week on caring were found to be most at risk of poor mental health. Based on the results, we advocate that the details of carers for individuals with psychosis should be added to the existing carers or severe mental illness registers at all general practitioner surgeries and for their wellbeing screened routinely. Future large-scale prospective studies are needed to develop a predictive model to determine risk factors, hence to aid early identification of carers' support needs. Such understandings are also useful to inform tailored intervention development.

Project description:BackgroundFamily carers play a crucial role in supporting the health and well-being of people with intellectual disabilities. Given their role and responsibilities, many family carers experience significant and ongoing stress and mental health difficulties. Programmes and interventions which provide training and support to family carers have been shown to have a positive impact on levels of stress and quality of life. However, these are often face to face which can create barriers to full participation. Online interventions have been shown to offer flexibility in delivery compared with traditional face-to-face approaches. The primary objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of delivering the Carers-ID online intervention, while the secondary outcome is improved mental health in family carers of people with intellectual disabilities.MethodsFamily carers (n = 120) will be randomised to receive the intervention (n = 60) or assigned to a wait-list control (n = 60) group. The intervention ( www.Carers-ID.com ) consists of 14 modules which cover topics including the following: promoting resilience, providing peer support, reducing anxiety, managing stress, accessing local supports and managing family conflict and information for siblings who are carers. The intervention has been co-produced with voluntary sector organisations and family carers and tested for acceptability. Primary outcomes for this study include acceptability and feasibility of the outcome measures, recruitment, participation and retention rates and effect sizes. Secondary outcomes will be completed at three time points (baseline, following intervention completion and 3 months after completion). These include the following: the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, the Resilience Scale and the Social Connectedness Scale Revised. Participants (n = 12) who have taken part in the intervention arm of the research will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews as part of the process evaluation.DiscussionThe Carers-ID intervention provides an online resource for family carers to support their mental health and well-being and promote their resilience. It represents an affordable and accessible means of delivering such support. Testing the feasibility of the intervention and related trial procedures is required to determine whether a full-scale randomised controlled trial to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT05737823.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psychotropic medications that are primarily licenced for the treatment of psychiatric disorders are used widely (32%-85%) among people with intellectual disabilities (ID) often for the management of problem (challenging) behaviour in the absence of a psychiatric disorder. Care staff play a pivotal role in the prescribing process. Currently, no staff training programme exists to address the issue of overprescribing of psychotropic medication in people with ID, thus highlighting an urgent need for developing a psychoeducational programme (PEP) specifically designed to address this issue. We propose to develop a PEP for care staff using the methodology described in the UK Medical Research Council guide for complex interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The development of the PEP will involve (1) gathering information on available relevant training programmes, (2) running four focus groups with care staff and other professionals to establish the content and format of the PEP, and (3) organising a co-design event involving all relevant stakeholders to discuss the format of the PEP. A core project team will develop the PEP under guidance from the PEP Development Group which will consist of 10-12 relevant stakeholder representatives. Feedback from selected stakeholders on a draft PEP will allow us to refine the PEP before implementation. The PEP will have web-based modules supplemented by face to face training sessions. When the final draft is ready, we will field test the PEP on six to eight care staff from community care homes for people with ID. After completing the field test, we will run a focus group involving participants in the PEP to get feedback on the PEP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval for this study was waived by the UK Health Regulatory Authority as the study does not collect any patient related information and only include care staff outside the UK NHS. This will be the first ever such universally freely available PEP supported by training manual and slides.

Project description:BackgroundThere are over 1 million adults with a learning disability in the UK, of whom approximately 20% displaying behaviours that challenge others. Two thirds of people with learning disabilities live in the family home. As they and their family carers age, both are likely to face particular difficulties and stresses, but there is little understanding of their experiences and needs. To address this evidence gap, our main objective is to undertake two rapid scoping reviews that will collectively focus on the health and social care needs, experiences, service interventions and resources of older people with learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers. Both reviews will focus on issues relating to forward planning and transitions to different care contexts. The study is part of a research project funded by the National Institute for Health Research No.129491.MethodsWe propose to address the need for evidence via two rapid scoping reviews. We will include published and unpublished (grey) literature, encompassing empirical research, policy and practice guidance and lay resources to support decision-making. We will search multiple electronic databases, hand search references lists, and use expert guidance to identify potential evidence. The following databases were used for research and grey literature: CINAHL; Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC); NHS Evidence; Scopus; Turning Evidence Into Practice (TRIP); Web of Science (WoS); Google (first 5 pages); and Google Scholar (first 5 pages). For RR2, additional intended databases are the Carer Research Knowledge Exchange Network (CAREN) and Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles for inclusion. One reviewer will extract data, with an independent review undertaken by the research team. Critical appraisal will depend on the nature of included evidence. Narrative synthesis will be collaboratively developed, with descriptive information presented in tables summarising study characteristics and thematic analysis of findings presented in the main text. Dissemination will be through journal publication, conference presentations and written short-form, easy-read versions of articles and audio-video clips for lay audiences.DiscussionWe will consider the strengths and limitations of our reviews, considering their impact on findings. We will summarise the main findings and provide an interpretation linked to the review questions and objectives. We will consider the implications of our findings for policy and practice, as well as future research addressing the support of older people with learning difficulties and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers, in the context of transition to different care contexts in the UK. The protocol has been registered as Vseteckova, J., Jordan, J., Tilley, E., Larkin, M., Ryan, S., and Wallace, L. (2021, December 4). Transitions for older people with learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers: a merged protocol for two rapid scoping reviews of evidence. Retrieved from osf.io/jzrn9.