RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The reliability and validity of the Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities (SCIL) are unknown in a population of outpatients with severe mental illness. The prevalence of mild or borderline intellectual disabilities (MBID); an umbrella term for people with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) and mild intellectual disability (MID) in this population is also unknown. METHODS: A total of 625 patients were screened with the SCIL, 201 of which also had IQ test results. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha of the SCIL was 0.73. The AUC value for detecting MBID was 0.81, and also 0.81 for detecting MID, with percentages of correctly classified subjects (when using the advised cut-off scores) being 73% and 79%, respectively. The SCIL results suggested that 40% of the patients were suspected of MBID and 20% of MID. CONCLUSION: The SCIL seems to be an appropriate screening tool for MBID. It is important to screen for MBID because a substantial proportion of outpatients with severe mental illness appear to be functioning at this level. It is necessary to adapt treatment for these patients.
Assuntos
Deficiência Intelectual/diagnóstico , Deficiências da Aprendizagem/diagnóstico , Transtornos Mentais , Testes Neuropsicológicos/normas , Pacientes Ambulatoriais/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Comorbidade , Feminino , Humanos , Deficiência Intelectual/epidemiologia , Deficiências da Aprendizagem/epidemiologia , Masculino , Transtornos Mentais/epidemiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos/epidemiologia , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Escalas de Wechsler , Adulto JovemRESUMO
During outreaching crisis visits, crisis team members run the risk of being confronted with aggressive behavior from their patients. To prevent dangerous situations, a method to assess risks in advance, on the basis of information received before the visit to the patient in crisis, could prove useful. During a two-year period, crisis team members completed a checklist before visiting patients in psychiatric crises. After each crisis visit, if there had been any aggression, this was recorded by means of the SOAS-R. In 51 of 499 crisis visits (10%) aggression was documented. The results indicate that the predictive validity of the presented checklist for occurrences of aggression may be fair-to-good. Use of the checklist in everyday crisis team practice seems recommendable as it structures the way risks are assessed before entering a potentially dangerous situation.
