Search results

While “generic” community teams for adults with learning disabilities (CTs) are well-established in the UK, very little recent evidence is available about any aspect of their work. As part of a larger project about the role, structure and functioning of CTs, the purpose of this paper is to provide data about referrals.

Over three months, the authors obtained data about 270 consecutive new referrals to five CTs in a countywide integrated health (NHS) and care management (local authority) service.

The 270 referrals related to 255 individuals, mainly already service users, with almost a third (30 per cent, n=204) described as people with severe or profound disabilities. Consistent with the reported living arrangements (residential accommodation or with one or more family members (87 per cent, n=270)), referrals were most often made by social care staff, General Practitioners or carers. The referrals related to a wide range of issues including mental health and/or behavioural needs, physical health and skills, and independence. The major group, however, were requests about a person’s entitlement to specialist learning disability services and/or reviews of an existing social care package.

The focus on new referrals and the exclusion of intra-team referrals mean that the data are not representative of a CT’s caseload and cannot be used as a basis for resourcing. Nevertheless, the findings emphasise the heterogeneity of the population, and the long-term and varied nature of their needs, meaning that CTs require access to a range of expertise and, often, an inter-agency approach. The implications for service design are considered.

This is the first empirical study of referrals to specialist integrated (health and care management) community learning disabilities teams in England.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which, in the five integrated community teams for adults with learning disabilities (CTLDs) in an English county-wide service, the use of psychotropic medication for service users was based on the presence of an appropriate mental health condition or epilepsy.

Adult participants were recruited following referral to one of the CTLDs for assessment, treatment and/or support of a possible mental health and/or behavioural need. Data were collected about participant characteristics and psychotropic medication 12 months after recruitment.

While a total of 42 (78 per cent) of the 54 participants were apparently prescribed regular or PRN (as required) psychotropic medication, only 24 (57 per cent) of these individuals had a recorded past or current mental health condition or epilepsy for which such medicine could be appropriate.

There were several limitations: the sample size was small and its representativeness was uncertain; and data collection was compromised by barriers to explicit knowledge exchange within and across the learning disability service.

While recent guidance about the use of psychotropic medication is welcome, minimising inappropriate use requires more comprehensive person-centred interventions (including crisis management plans), underpinned by imaginative, but feasible, data collection methods and integrated formulations. Investment is needed in developments that support multi-disciplinary and inter-agency working to promote “good practice” by CTLDs in responding to referrals for possible mental health and/or behavioural needs.

Complementing recent large studies of primary care (General Practitioner) records, this is the first examination of the use of psychotropic medication by service users in English CTLDs.