Abstract
Introduction: Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews (C(E)TR)
are meetings to review individualized needs of people with
intellectual disabilities (PwID) at risk of or currently undergoing
psychiatric hospitalization. We aimed to understand C(E)TR
impact and effectiveness from professionals working with PwID.
Methods: An online mixed-methodology survey which
included 34 questions (either Likert or free text) was shared
with networks including relevant professionals. Quantitative
data are presented descriptively. Thematic analysis was conducted on free-text responses.
Results: Of 66 people representing multiple intellectual disability teams across the UK, 67% found the C(E)TR process useful,
35% felt C(E)TRs made a difference to their clinical care, while
36% felt it did not. Thematic analysis showed four overarching
themesj: processes and structures, recommendations, accountability, and statutory vs. advisory. Word missing after advisory?
Conclusion: Clinicians find C(E)TRs useful for their practice but
remain concerned about significant clinical risks and service
issues beyond their control which C(E)TRs fail to identify.
are meetings to review individualized needs of people with
intellectual disabilities (PwID) at risk of or currently undergoing
psychiatric hospitalization. We aimed to understand C(E)TR
impact and effectiveness from professionals working with PwID.
Methods: An online mixed-methodology survey which
included 34 questions (either Likert or free text) was shared
with networks including relevant professionals. Quantitative
data are presented descriptively. Thematic analysis was conducted on free-text responses.
Results: Of 66 people representing multiple intellectual disability teams across the UK, 67% found the C(E)TR process useful,
35% felt C(E)TRs made a difference to their clinical care, while
36% felt it did not. Thematic analysis showed four overarching
themesj: processes and structures, recommendations, accountability, and statutory vs. advisory. Word missing after advisory?
Conclusion: Clinicians find C(E)TRs useful for their practice but
remain concerned about significant clinical risks and service
issues beyond their control which C(E)TRs fail to identify.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 7 Jul 2025 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Psychiatry and Mental Health
Keywords
- Psychiatric inpatient
- challenging behavior
- learning disability
- mental health
- segregation