Family carers’ experience of the need for admission of their relative with an intellectual disability to an Assessment and Treatment Unit

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil James
2020 ◽  
pp. 174462952090163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwen Davies ◽  
Jade Silver ◽  
Scarlett Josham ◽  
Emma Grist ◽  
Lewis Jones ◽  
...  

This study evaluates the implementation of Safewards on an assessment and treatment unit (ATU) for people with an intellectual disability. There are no previous studies evaluating this model in this context and previous research has focused largely on acute mental health services. The ‘Patient–Staff Conflict Shift Report’ was used at baseline for 1 month and 1 year later, after all the interventions had been implemented, to evaluate the impact of Safewards. Significant reductions were found in conflict and containment measures used within the service after the implementation of Safewards. Staff who led on the interventions were also asked to give feedback on their experiences, the challenges they faced and how they would like to move forward. Safewards was generally seen as a positive approach by the team. Limitations of this study are highlighted and suggestions for future research are made.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daljit Sandhu ◽  
Rose Tomlins

The role and future of assessment and treatment units for people with intellectual disabilities is once again the focus of debate and government policy. Reviewing the admissions to inpatient services can provide useful information about the characteristics, needs and clinical outcomes of clients. Data were collected retrospectively for all 36 referrals accepted to an inpatient assessment and treatment unit for people with intellectual disability, between January 2013 and April 2014. Clinical and demographic characteristics of service users were identified through descriptive analysis. Male service users, mild intellectual disability and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder were frequent, and a high proportion of admissions had complex and multiple needs. The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale–Intellectual Disabilities was used as a clinical outcome measure. We conclude with recommendations for service development following closure of our inpatient service.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil James

Purpose – Currently there is no research that explores professionals’ perspectives in supporting carers of a person with an intellectual disability during their relatives admission to a specialist in-patient setting. The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from the second stage of a study that explored the experiences of family carers whose relative was admitted to a specialist National Health Service assessment and treatment unit (ATU) in Wales, UK (James, 2016). Design/methodology/approach – Aim: to obtain the views of professionals in relation to what they consider are the barriers and facilitators to addressing some of the experiences discussed by carers. Methods: nine professionals working in intellectual disability-specific services participated in four semi-structured interviews and one focus group (n=5) and the data were analysed using a descriptive thematic analysis process. Findings – Three major themes were developed to represent what professionals identified as a number of individual, organisational and practical facilitators and barriers to the provision of support to carers at this time. Professionals recognised the important role they have in developing relationships with carers during the admission. Key to this relationship is effective communication, collaboration, involvement and the need to be consistently open and honest. Research limitations/implications – The small sample size could be said to be a weakness and unrepresentative and practice of other professionals. However, what professionals reported had similarities to the findings from other related research. Importantly, the findings have a practical significance in that they can be used to raise awareness and be used to inform the development of future research and practice. The sample could also be criticised for not having representation from a wider range of professionals from across the multi-disciplinary team. However, a strength of the sample is that it did have representation from three different professional disciplines with different roles and responsibilities. Practical implications – Currently there is very limited research exploring the experiences of professionals in respect of supporting carers during the admission of a relative to a specialist in-patient setting. Professionals demonstrated an understanding of the impact that the additional needs and admission of their relative to an ATU could have on carers. Accordingly, they were able to recognise the important role that they, and other professionals, play in developing relationships as part of providing support to them during this time. Key to these relationships was effective communication and in particular the need to be consistently open and honest. Social implications – The findings from this study illustrate a gap between the rhetoric of policy, legislation and carer strategies, and practice of valuing and respecting the role that carers. Of particular concern is that some of the relationships that carers have had with professionals have threatened rather than positively endorsed and augmented their role and identity. These engagements with professionals therefore have had a profound effect on the way in which they have understood their value as a carer and their own sense of self. Significantly, the actions and behaviours of professionals play a key role in shaping carers views of themselves and their identity. Originality/value – Currently there is no research that has explored the views of professionals in respect of support and relationships with carers at this time. The synthesis of findings from stage one of this study with professionals’ perspectives of resulted in the identification of similarities and differences in experiences as well as facilitators and barriers to support provision. In so doing, it has given clear application of the studies findings to practice. This study therefore provides an original contribution to the understanding of this area of carer experience, from the perspectives of professionals and adds to the wider literature exploring the family carer experience.


1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Wooldridge ◽  
Gloria Parker ◽  
Patricia A. MacKenzie

2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 619-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Fulford ◽  
John Farhall

Objective: Demonstration studies of community treatment as an alternative to hospitalization have reported high degrees of satisfaction by family carers. We aimed to determine the extent of carer preference for hospital versus community treatment for acute mental illness in a routine setting where carers had experienced both service types. Method: Patients who had contact with both a hospital inpatient service and a Crisis Assessment and Treatment (CAT) team within the previous 5 years were identified. Seventy-seven family carers of these patients completed a questionnaire which identified their preference for services, and psychological and demographic variables likely to be predictive of their choice. Results: Only half the carers preferred a CAT service to treat their relative in the event of a future relapse. Psychological variables were better predictors of choice than were demographic variables. Conclusions: The proportion of caregivers who prefer community treatment for acute psychosis may be smaller than previously thought. The lower carer satisfaction found here may be associated with the short-term interventions of Victoria's CAT teams, the severity of acute relapses and the duration of the patient's mental health problem.


CMAJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. E810-E818
Author(s):  
Alexandria Bennett ◽  
Kednapa Thavorn ◽  
Kristina Arendas ◽  
Doug Coyle ◽  
Sukhbir S. Singh

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 380-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Ferrell ◽  
Eve J. Wolinsky ◽  
Christopher I. Kauffman ◽  
Laura A. Flashman ◽  
Thomas W. McAllister

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document