Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2017
Rate and characteristics of urgent hospitalisation in persons with profound intellectual disabilities compared with general population.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amor-Salamanca A, Menchon J M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the hospitalisation rate of adults with severe/profound intellectual disability (PID) presenting at emergency services or about the appropriateness of hospital admissions in this population. Examining the possible differences in the patterns of hospitalisation between people with PID and those without intellectual disability (ID) may shed light on aspects of health and illness in these patients and may in turn make it possible to differentiate more clearly between mild-moderate ID and PID.
METHODS: After an evaluation of the emergency visits made by adults with PID and by people without ID, patients in both groups requiring one or more hospitalisations were subsequently followed up for 18 months. The appropriateness of the decision to hospitalise was assessed using the ambulatory care-sensitive conditions index.
RESULTS: There were no differences in the proportion of people with PID and controls admitted to hospital after their emergency visit. The median hospital stay was higher for PIDs: 7.5 vs. 4 days for controls. People with PID were admitted more than controls for respiratory reasons and somewhat less for other somatic causes unrelated to the nervous system. There were no admissions for psychiatric causes in the group with PID other than unspecified conduct disorders. There were no differences in other diagnostic groups. The rate of inappropriate admissions was similar in the two study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous results reported for the group with ID as a whole, patients with PID consulting the emergency service were not admitted to hospital more frequently than the general population nor did they present a higher rate of inappropriate admissions. These results support the utility of maintaining two distinct groups of people with ID: mild-moderate and severe-profound.
METHODS: After an evaluation of the emergency visits made by adults with PID and by people without ID, patients in both groups requiring one or more hospitalisations were subsequently followed up for 18 months. The appropriateness of the decision to hospitalise was assessed using the ambulatory care-sensitive conditions index.
RESULTS: There were no differences in the proportion of people with PID and controls admitted to hospital after their emergency visit. The median hospital stay was higher for PIDs: 7.5 vs. 4 days for controls. People with PID were admitted more than controls for respiratory reasons and somewhat less for other somatic causes unrelated to the nervous system. There were no admissions for psychiatric causes in the group with PID other than unspecified conduct disorders. There were no differences in other diagnostic groups. The rate of inappropriate admissions was similar in the two study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous results reported for the group with ID as a whole, patients with PID consulting the emergency service were not admitted to hospital more frequently than the general population nor did they present a higher rate of inappropriate admissions. These results support the utility of maintaining two distinct groups of people with ID: mild-moderate and severe-profound.