MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Service Inpatient Units for People with Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour or Mental Health Problems

2010· article· en· W2129284943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jim Mansell, Fiona Ritchie, Ricinda Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Kent
KeywordsStaffingSeclusionMental healthUnit (ring theory)MedicineIntellectual disabilityQuarter (Canadian coin)Service (business)NursingAgency (philosophy)Public sectorHealth careToiletingBusinessPsychiatryPsychologyActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background As institutions for people with intellectual disabilities have been replaced with community services, health care provision has developed to provide assessment and treatment, low and medium secure units for people with challenging behaviour or mental health problems. These include both public and private sector provision. Little is known about these services. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of the services studied and to compare the different types of service. Methods A survey was carried out of National Health Service (NHS) and independent sector (IH) health settings providing specialist inpatient services for people with intellectual disabilities. Data were collected on setting and patient characteristics, staffing and management and care processes and outcomes. Results Services were very unevenly distributed across England. There were differences between NHS and IH settings. IH assessment and treatment units were bigger, had higher occupancy and lower staff ratio. In all three types of unit, IH units had fewer visits to patients, used more seclusion, physical restraint and had more locked areas. They had more complaints in more services from users and (for assessment and treatment units and low secure units only) from relatives. In low secure units, they had more adult protection referrals. On the other hand, IH units used fewer agency staff in assessment and treatment units (though more in medium secure units) and provided more appraisals, more visits from commissioners, more consultations with GPs and dentists and more use of whistleblowing procedures by staff. A quarter of people in NHS assessment and treatment units had finished treatment but had no plan for discharge. Conclusions Further research is required to determine the reasons for differences observed between IH and NHS units. The large number of people who have finished treatment emphasizes the importance of developing housing in the community with sufficiently skilled support. The large number of patients in low secure services raises the question whether this type of service is recreating the intellectual disability institutions which government policy intends to close.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207