Recording of intellectual disability in general hospitals in England 2006-2019: Cohort study using linked datasets.

BACKGROUND: Accurate recognition and recording of intellectual disability in those who are admitted to general hospitals is necessary for making reasonable adjustments, ensuring equitable access, and monitoring quality of care. In this study, we determined the rate of recording of intellectual disability in those with the condition who were admitted to hospital and factors associated with the condition being unrecorded. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective cohort study using 2 linked datasets of routinely collected clinical data in England. We identified adults with diagnosed intellectual disability in a large secondary mental healthcare database and used general hospital records to investigate recording of intellectual disability when people were admitted to general hospitals between 2006 and 2019. Trends over time and factors associated with intellectual disability being unrecorded were investigated. We obtained data on 2,477 adults with intellectual disability who were admitted to a general hospital in England at least once during the study period (total number of admissions = 27,314; median number of admissions = 5). People with intellectual disability were accurately recorded as having the condition during 2.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 3.1%) of their admissions. Broadening the criteria to include a nonspecific code of learning difficulty increased recording to 27.7% (95% CI 27.2% to 28.3%) of all admissions. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation, having a mild intellectual disability and being married were associated with increased odds of the intellectual disability being unrecorded in hospital records. We had no measure of quality of hospital care received and could not relate this to the presence or absence of a record of intellectual disability in the patient record. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition and recording of intellectual disability in adults admitted to English general hospitals needs to be improved. Staff awareness training, screening at the point of admission, and data sharing between health and social care services could improve care for people with intellectual disability.

Infection control and the prevalence, management and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infections in mental health wards in London, UK: lessons learned from wave 1 to wave 2.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) has high morbidity and mortality in older adults and people with dementia. Infection control and prevention measures potentially reduce transmission within hospitals. AIMS: We aimed to replicate our earlier study of London mental health in-patients to examine changes in clinical guidance and practice and associated COVID-19 prevalence and outcomes between COVID-19 waves 1 and 2 (1 March to 30 April 2020 and 14 December 2020 to 15 February 2021). METHOD: We collected the 2 month period prevalence of wave 2 of COVID-19 in older (≥65 years) in-patients and those with dementia, as well as patients' characteristics, management and outcomes, including vaccinations. We compared these results with those of our wave 1 study. RESULTS: Sites reported that routine testing and personal protective equipment were available, and routine patient isolation on admission occurred throughout wave 2. COVID-19 infection occurred in 91/358 (25%; 95% CI 21-30%) v. 131/344, (38%; 95% CI 33-43%) P < 0.001 in wave 1. Hospitals identified more asymptomatic carriers (26/91; 29% v. 16/130; 12%) and fewer deaths (12/91; 13% v. 19/131; 15%; odds ratio = 0.92; 0.37-1.81) compared with wave 1. The patient vaccination uptake rate was 49/58 (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in psychiatric in-patient settings, mostly admitted without known SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a high risk of infection compared with people in the community but lower than that during wave 1. Availability of infection control measures in line with a policy of parity of esteem between mental and physical health appears to have lowered within-hospital COVID-19 infections and deaths. Cautious management of vulnerable patient groups including mental health patients may reduce the future impact of COVID-19.

Empathy and its associations with age and sociodemographic characteristics in a large UK population sample.

OBJECTIVES: Empathy is fundamental to social cognition, driving prosocial behaviour and mental health but associations with aging and other socio-demographic characteristics are unclear. We therefore aimed to characterise associations of these characteristics with two main self-reported components of empathy, namely empathic-concern (feeling compassion) and perspective-taking (understanding others' perspective). METHODS: We asked participants in an internet-based survey of UK-dwelling adults aged ≥18 years to complete the Interpersonal Reactivity Index subscales measuring empathic concern and perspective taking, and sociodemographic and personality questionnaires. We weighted the sample to be UK population representative and employed multivariable weighted linear regression models. RESULTS: In 30,033 respondents, mean empathic concern score was 3.86 (95% confidence interval 3.85, 3.88) and perspective taking was 3.57 (3.56. 3.59); the correlation between these sub-scores was 0.45 (p < 0.001). Empathic concern and perspective taking followed an inverse-u shape trajectory in women with peak between 40 and 50 years whereas in men, perspective taking declines with age but empathic concern increases. In fully adjusted models, greater empathic concern was associated with female gender, non-white ethnicity, having more education, working in health, social-care, or childcare professions, and having higher neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience and agreeableness traits. Perspective taking was associated with younger age, female gender, more education, employment in health or social-care, neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness. CONCLUSIONS: Empathic compassion and understanding are distinct dimensions of empathy with differential demographic associations. Perspective taking may decline due to cognitive inflexibility with older age whereas empathic concern increases in older men suggesting it is socially-driven.

Acute mental health presentations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: A number of community based surveys have identified an increase in psychological symptoms and distress but there has been no examination of symptoms at the more severe end of the mental health spectrum. AIMS: We aimed to analyse numbers and types of psychiatric presentations to inform planning for future demand on mental health services in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We analysed electronic data between January and April 2020 for 2534 patients referred to acute psychiatric services, and tested for differences in patient demographics, symptom severity and use of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), before and after lockdown. We used interrupted time-series analyses to compare trends in emergency department and psychiatric presentations until December 2020. RESULTS: There were 22% fewer psychiatric presentations the first week and 48% fewer emergency department presentations in the first month after lockdown initiated. A higher proportion of patients were detained under the MHA (22.2 v. 16.1%) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (2.2 v. 1.1%) (χ2(2) = 16.3, P < 0.0001), and they experienced a longer duration of symptoms before seeking help from mental health services (χ2(3) = 18.6, P < 0.0001). A higher proportion of patients presented with psychotic symptoms (23.3 v. 17.0%) or delirium (7.0 v. 3.6%), and fewer had self-harm behaviour (43.8 v. 52.0%, χ2(7) = 28.7, P < 0.0001). A higher proportion were admitted to psychiatric in-patient units (22.2 v. 18.3%) (χ2(6) = 42.8, P < 0.0001) after lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: UK lockdown resulted in fewer psychiatric presentations, but those who presented were more likely to have severe symptoms, be detained under the MHA and be admitted to hospital. Psychiatric services should ensure provision of care for these patients as well as planning for those affected by future COVID-19 waves.

Dementia wellbeing and COVID-19: Review and expert consensus on current research and knowledge gaps.

OBJECTIVES: In response to a commissioned research update on dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic, a UK-based working group, comprising dementia researchers from a range of fields and disciplines, aimed to describe the impact of the pandemic on dementia wellbeing and identify priorities for future research. METHODS: We supplemented a rapid literature search (including unpublished, non-peer reviewed and ongoing studies/reports) on dementia wellbeing in the context of COVID-19 with expert group members' consensus about future research needs. From this we generated potential research questions the group judged to be relevant that were not covered by the existing literature. RESULTS: Themes emerged from 141 studies within the six domains of the NHS England COVID-19 Dementia Wellbeing Pathway: Preventing Well, Diagnosing Well, Treating Well, Supporting Well, Living Well and Dying Well. We describe current research findings and knowledge gaps relating to the impact on people affected by dementia (individuals with a diagnosis, their carers and social contacts, health and social care practitioners and volunteers), services, research activities and organisations. Broad themes included the potential benefits and risks of new models of working including remote healthcare, the need for population-representative longitudinal studies to monitor longer-term impacts, and the importance of reporting dementia-related findings within broader health and care studies. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on people affected by dementia. Researchers and funding organisations have responded rapidly to try to understand the impacts. Future research should highlight and resolve outstanding questions to develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality of life of people affected by dementia.

Social relationships and depression during the COVID-19 lockdown: longitudinal analysis of the COVID-19 Social Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to measures that reduced social contact and support. We explored whether UK residents with more frequent or supportive social contact had fewer depressive symptoms during March-August 2020, and potential factors moderating the relationship. METHODS: A convenience sample of UK dwelling participants aged ⩾18 in the internet-based longitudinal COVID-19 Social Study completed up to 22 weekly questionnaires about face-to-face and phone/video social contact frequency, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms using the PHQ-9. Mixed linear models examined associations between social contact and support, and depressive symptoms. We examined for interaction by empathic concern, perspective taking and pre-COVID social contact frequency. RESULTS: In 71 117 people with mean age 49 years (standard deviation 15), those with high perceived social support scored 1.836 (1.801-1.871) points lower on PHQ-9 than those with low support. Daily face-to-face or phone/video contact was associated with lower depressive symptoms (0.258 (95% confidence interval 0.225-0.290) and 0.117 (0.080-0.154), respectively) compared to no contact. The negative association between social relationships and depressive symptoms was stronger for those with high empathic concern, perspective taking and usual sociability. CONCLUSIONS: We found during lockdown that those with higher quality or more face-to-face or phone/video contact had fewer depressive symptoms. Contact quality was more strongly associated than quantity. People who were usually more sociable or had higher empathy had more depressive symptoms during enforced reduced contact. The results have implications for COVID-19 and potential future pandemic management, and for understanding the relationship between social factors and mental health.

Prevalence, management, and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infections in older people and those with dementia in mental health wards in London, UK: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: People living in group situations or with dementia are more vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Older people and those with multimorbidity have higher mortality if they become infected than the general population. However, no systematic study exists of COVID-19-related outcomes in older inpatients in psychiatric units, who comprise people from these high-risk groups. We aimed to describe the period prevalence, demographics, symptoms (and asymptomatic cases), management, and survival outcomes of COVID-19 in the older inpatient psychiatric population and people with young-onset dementia in five National Health Service Trusts in London, UK, from March 1 to April 30, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we collected demographic data, mental health diagnoses, clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, symptoms, management, and COVID-19-related outcome data of inpatients aged 65 years or older or with dementia who were already inpatients or admitted as inpatients to five London mental health Trusts between March 1 and April 30, 2020, and information about available COVID-19-related resources (ie, testing and personal protective equipment). Patients were determined to have COVID-19 if they had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, or had relevant symptoms indicative of COVID-19, as determined by their treating physician. We calculated period prevalence of COVID-19 and analysed patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. FINDINGS: Of 344 inpatients, 131 (38%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period (period prevalence 38% [95% CI 33-43]). The mean age of patients who had COVID-19 was 75·3 years (SD 8·2); 68 (52%) were women and 47 (36%) from ethnic minority groups. 16 (12%) of 131 patients were asymptomatic and 121 (92%) had one or more disease-related comorbidity. 108 (82%) patients were compulsorily detained. 74 (56%) patients had dementia, of whom 13 (18%) had young-onset dementia. On average, sites received COVID-19 testing kits 4·5 days after the first clinical COVID-19 presentation. 19 (15%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 died during the study period, and their deaths were determined to be COVID-19 related. INTERPRETATION: Patients in psychiatric inpatient settings who were admitted without known SARS-CoV-2 infection had a high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those in the community and had a higher proportion of deaths from COVID-19 than in the community. Implementation of the long-standing policy of parity of esteem for mental health and planning for future COVID-19 waves in psychiatric hospitals is urgent. FUNDING: None.