A Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland

Published version made available in accordance with the Publisher's Policy. © Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]

Rates and causes of mortality among children and young people with and without intellectual disabilities in Scotland: a record linkage cohort study of 796,190 schoolchildren

Objectives: To investigate mortality rates and causes in children and young people with intellectual disabilities. Design: Retrospective cohort; individual record linkage between Scotland’s annual pupil census and National Records of Scotland death register. Setting: General community. Participants: Pupils receiving local authority-funded schooling in Scotland, 2008 to 2013, with an Additional Support Need due to intellectual disabilities, compared with other pupils. Main outcome measures: Deaths up to 2015: age of death, age-standardised mortality ratios (age-SMRs); causes of death including cause-specific age-SMRs; avoidable deaths as defined by the UK Office of National Statistics. Results: 18 278/947 922 (1.9%) pupils had intellectual disabilities. 106 died over 67 342 person-years (crude mortality rate=157/100 000 person-years), compared with 458 controls over 3 672 224 person-years (crude mortality rate=12/100 000 person-years). Age-SMR was 11.6 (95% CI 9.6 to 14.0); 16.6 (95% CI 12.2 to 22.6) for female pupils and 9.8 (95% CI 7.7 to 12.5) for male pupils. Most common main underlying causes were diseases of the nervous system, followed by congenital anomalies; most common all-contributing causes were diseases of the nervous system, followed by respiratory system; most common specific contributing causes were cerebral palsy, pneumonia, respiratory failure and epilepsy. For all contributing causes, SMR was 98.8 (95% CI 69.9 to 139.7) for congenital anomalies, 76.5 (95% CI 58.9 to 99.4) for nervous system, 63.7 (95% CI 37.0 to 109.7) for digestive system, 55.3 (95% CI 42.5 to 72.1) for respiratory system, 32.1 (95% CI 17.8 to 57.9) for endocrine and 14.8 (95% CI 8.9 to 24.5) for circulatory system. External causes accounted for 46% of control deaths, but the SMR for external-related deaths was still higher (3.6 (95% CI 2.2 to 5.8)) for pupils with intellectual disabilities. Deaths amenable to good care were common. Conclusion: Pupils with intellectual disabilities were much more likely to die than their peers, and had a different pattern of causes, including amenable deaths across a wide range of disease categories. Improvements are needed to reduce amenable deaths, for example, epilepsy-related and dysphagia, and to support families of children with life-limiting conditions

The relative influence of intellectual disabilities and autism on mental and general health in Scotland: a cross-sectional study of a whole country of 5.3 million children and adults

Objectives: To determine the relative extent that autism and intellectual disabilities are independently associated with poor mental and general health, in children and adults. Design: Cross-sectional study. For Scotland’s population, logistic regressions investigated odds of intellectual disabilities and autism predicting mental health conditions, and poor general health, adjusted for age and gender. Participants: 1 548 819 children/youth aged 0-24 years, and 3 746 584 adults aged more than 25 years, of whom 9396/1 548 819 children/youth had intellectual disabilities (0.6%), 25 063/1 548 819 children/youth had autism (1.6%); and 16 953/3 746 584 adults had intellectual disabilities (0.5%), 6649/3 746 584 adults had autism (0.2%). These figures are based on self-report. Main outcome measures: Self-reported general health status and mental health. Results: In children/youth, intellectual disabilities (OR 7.04, 95% CI 6.30 to 7.87) and autism (OR 25.08, 95% CI 23.08 to 27.32) both independently predicted mental health conditions. In adults, intellectual disabilities (OR 3.50, 95% CI 3.20 to 3.84) and autism (OR 5.30, 95% CI 4.80 to 5.85) both independently predicted mental health conditions. In children/youth, intellectual disabilities (OR 18.34, 95% CI 17.17 to 19.58) and autism (OR 8.40, 95% CI 8.02 to 8.80) both independently predicted poor general health. In adults, intellectual disabilities (OR 7.54, 95% CI 7.02 to 8.10) and autism (OR 4.46, 95% CI 4.06 to 4.89) both independently predicted poor general health. Conclusions: Both intellectual disabilities and autism independently predict poor health, intellectual disabilities more so for general health and autism more so for mental health. Intellectual disabilities and autism are not uncommon, and due to their associated poor health, sufficient services/supports are needed. This is not just due to coexistence of these conditions or just to having intellectual disabilities, as the population with autism is independently associated with substantial health inequalities compared with the general population, across the entire life course

Rates, causes, place and predictors of mortality in adults with intellectual disabilities with and without Down syndrome : cohort study with record linkage

Funding: UK Medical Research Council, grant number: MC_PC_17217), and the Scottish Government via the Scottish Learning Disabilities Observatory.Objectives To investigate mortality in adults with intellectual disabilities: rates, causes, place, demographic and clinical predictors. Design Cohort study with record linkage to death data. Setting General community. Participants 961/1023 (94%) adults (16–83 years; mean=44.1 years; 54.6% male) with intellectual disabilities, clinically examined in 2001–2004; subsequently record-linked to their National Health Service number, allowing linkage to death certificate data, 2018. Outcome measures Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs), underlying and all contributing causes of death, avoidable deaths, place, and demographic and clinical predictors of death. Results 294/961 (30.6%) had died; 64/179 (35.8%) with Down syndrome, 230/783 (29.4%) without Down syndrome. SMR overall=2.24 (1.98, 2.49); Down syndrome adults=5.28 (3.98, 6.57), adults without Down syndrome=1.93 (1.68, 2.18); male=1.69 (1.42, 1.95), female=3.48 (2.90, 4.06). SMRs decreased as age increased. More severe intellectual disabilities increased SMR, but ability was not retained in the multivariable model. SMRs were higher for most International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision chapters. For adults without Down syndrome, aspiration/reflux/choking and respiratory infection were the the most common underlying causes of mortality; for Down syndrome adults ‘Down syndrome’, and dementia were most common. Amenable deaths (29.8%) were double that in the general population (14%); 60.3% died in hospital. Mortality risk related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/tube fed, Down syndrome, diabetes, lower respiratory tract infection at cohort-entry, smoking, epilepsy, hearing impairment, increasing number of prescribed drugs, increasing age. Bowel incontinence reduced mortality risk. Conclusions Adults with intellectual disabilities with and without Down syndrome have different SMRs and causes of death which should be separately reported. Both die younger, from different causes than other people. Some mortality risks are similar to other people, with earlier mortality reflecting more multimorbidity; amenable deaths are also common. This should inform actions to reduce early mortality, for example, training to avoid aspiration/choking, pain identification to address problems before they are advanced, and reasonable adjustments to improve healthcare quality.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

The relationship between moral development, distorted cognitions and social problem solving amongst men with intellectual disabilities who have a history of criminal offending

Aim: Little is known about the self-rated health status of people with co-morbid autism and intellectual disabilities (ID) in whole country populations. This paper will present analysis of: self-rated general health status, demographic factors, and prevalence of other disabilities for people with co-morbid autism and ID, as well as people with autism only. Method: We analysed data from Scotland’s Census 2011, and generated descriptive statistics. Results: People with co-morbid autism and ID (n=5,709)comprised 0.1% of the total population of Scotland (n=5,295,403) and 18 .0% of the whole population of people with autism in Scotland(n=31,712) across all ages. Only 2,863 (50.1%) people with co-morbid autism and ID rated their health as good or very good, compared with 19,97 1 (76.8%) of all people with autism only. Conclusions: Health is poorer for people with c o-morbid autism and ID than for people with autism only. Further analysis will explore the impact of individual and household characteristics on the health o f people with co-morbid autism and ID

Management and prevalence of long-term conditions in primary health care for adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population: a population-based cohort study

Background: In the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for performance on management of long-term conditions, according to best-practice indicators. Method: Management of long-term conditions was compared between 721 adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population (n = 764,672). Prevalence of long-term conditions was determined, and associated factors were investigated via logistic regression analyses. Results: Adults with intellectual disabilities received significantly poorer management of all long-term conditions on 38/57 (66.7%) indicators. Achievement was high (75.1%–100%) for only 19.6% of adults with intellectual disabilities, compared with 76.8% of the general population. Adults with intellectual disabilities had higher rates of epilepsy, psychosis, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and heart failure. There were no clear associations with neighbourhood deprivation. Conclusions: Adults with intellectual disabilities receive poorer care, despite conditions being more prevalent. The imperative now is to find practical, implementable means of supporting the challenges that general practices face in delivering equitable care

Cohort profile:Scotland’s record-linkage e-cohorts of people with intellectual disabilities, and autistic people (SCIDA)

Purpose: To investigate health, mortality and healthcare inequalities experienced by people with intellectual disabilities, and autistic people, and their determinants; an important step towards identifying and implementing solutions to reduce inequalities. This paper describes the cohorts, record-linkages and variables that will be used. Participants: Scotland’s Census, 2011 was used to identify Scotland’s citizens with intellectual disabilities, and autistic citizens, and representative general population samples with neither. Using Scotland’s community health index, the Census data (demography, household, employment, long-term conditions) were linked with routinely collected health, death and healthcare data: Scotland’s register of deaths, Scottish morbidity data 06 (SMR06: cancer incidence, mortality, treatments), Prescribing Information System (identifying asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; angina/congestive heart failure/hypertension; peptic ulcer/reflux; constipation; diabetes; thyroid disorder; depression; bipolar disorders; anxiety/sleep; psychosis; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; epilepsy; glaucoma), SMR01 (general/acute hospital admissions and causes, ambulatory care sensitive admissions), SMR04 (mental health admissions and causes), Scottish Care Information–Diabetes Collaboration (diabetic care quality, diabetic outcomes), national bowel screening programme and cervical screening. Findings to date: Of the whole population, 0.5% had intellectual disabilities, and 0.6% were autistic. Linkage was successful for >92%. The resultant e-cohorts include: (1) 22 538 people with intellectual disabilities (12 837 men and 9701 women), 4509 of whom are children <16 years, (2) 27 741 autistic people (21 390 men and 6351 women), 15 387 of whom are children <16 years and (3) representative general population samples with neither condition. Very good general health was reported for only 3389 (15.0%) people with intellectual disabilities, 10 510 (38.0%) autistic people, compared with 52.4% general population. Mental health conditions were reported for 4755 (21.1%) people with intellectual disabilities, 3998 (14.4%) autistic people, compared with 4.2% general population. Future plans: Analyses will determine the extent of premature mortality, causes of death, and avoidable deaths, profile of health conditions and cancers, healthcare quality and screening and determinants of mortality and healthcare

The relative influence of intellectual disabilities and autism on sensory impairments and physical disability:A whole‐country cohort of 5.3 million children and adults

Background: Intellectual disabilities and autism are lifelong and often co‐occur. Little is known on their extent of independent association with sensory impairments and physical disability. Methods: For Scotland's population, logistic regressions investigated age–gender‐adjusted odds ratios (OR) of associations, independently, of intellectual disabilities and autism with sensory impairments and physical disability. Results: 1,548,819 children/youth, and 3,746,584 adults. In children/youth, the effect size of intellectual disabilities and autism, respectively, was as follows: blindness (OR = 30.12; OR = 2.63), deafness (OR = 13.98; OR = 2.31), and physical disability (OR = 43.72; OR = 5.62). For adults, the effect size of intellectual disabilities and autism, respectively, was as follows: blindness (OR = 16.89; OR = 3.29), deafness (OR = 7.47; OR = 2.36), and physical disability (OR = 6.04; OR = 3.16). Conclusions: Intellectual disabilities have greater association with the population burden of sensory impairments/physical disability, but autism is also associated regardless of overlap with intellectual disabilities. These may impact further on communication limitations due to autism and intellectual disabilities, increasing complexity of assessments/management of other health conditions. Clinicians need to be aware of these important issues