Has teaching about intellectual disability healthcare in Australian medical schools improved? A 20-year comparison of curricula audits.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disability (ID) have multiple and complex health needs, more frequent healthcare episodes, and experience poorer health outcomes. Research conducted two decades ago showed that medical professionals were lacking in the knowledge and skills required to address the complex needs of this patient group. The aim of the current study was to determine whether Australian undergraduate medical schools that offer ID health education content had changed the amount and nature of such teaching over this period. METHODS: Identical or equivalent questionnaire items were compared across eight Australian medical schools that participated in curricula audits conducted in 1995 (referred to as T1) and 2013/14 (T2). The audits were of the nature of the ID content, methods used to teach it, and who taught it. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the number of hours of compulsory ID content offered to medical students at T2 (total = 158.3 h; median = 2.8 h per ID unit) compared with T1 (total = 171 h; median = 2.5 h). At T2 compared with T1, units with ID content taught in the area of general practice had increased (2 units; 3.6% to 7 units; 16.3%), while decreases were seen in paediatrics (22 units; 40.0% to 10 units; 23.3%) and psychiatry (10 units; 18.2% to 4 units; 9.3%). The number of schools using problem- and/or enquiry-based learning rose to six at T2 from one at T1. Inclusive teaching practices (people with ID develop or deliver content) in compulsory/elective units had increased at T2 (10 units; 23.3%) compared with T1 (6 units; 10.9%), but direct clinical contact with people with ID had decreased (29 units; 52.7% to 11 units; 25.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, little progress has been made to address the gaps in ID education for medical students identified from an audit conducted in 1995. Renewal of ID content in medical curricula is indicated as a key element in efforts to improve workforce capacity in this area and reduce barriers to care, with the aim of reversing the poor health outcomes currently seen for this group.

Intellectual disability content within tertiary medical curriculum: how is it taught and by whom?

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disability experience higher rates of physical and mental health conditions compared with the general population, yet have inequitable access to health care services. Improving the workplace capacity of medical professionals to meet the needs of this population is one way to reduce barriers to care and improve health outcomes. Using diverse pedagogy appropriate to learning outcomes to teach medical students about intellectual disability is a necessary step in improving future workplace capacity. However, there is a lack of research into how, and by whom, medical students are taught about intellectual disability. The aim of this study was to investigate this through an audit of Australian medical school curricula. METHODS: The Deans of Australian universities that provide accredited medical degrees (n = 20) were invited by email to participate in a two-phase audit of intellectual disability content in the curricula. Phase 1 (n = 14 schools) involved the Dean's delegate completing a telephone interview or questionnaire regarding medical course structure. If intellectual disability content was identified, a unit coordinator was invited to complete a survey regarding how this content was taught and by whom (Phase 2; n = 12 schools). RESULTS: There was considerable variability across Australian medical schools regarding methods used to teach content about intellectual disability. Didactic teaching methods were most frequently used (62% of units included some form of lecture), but workshops and tutorials were reasonably well represented (34% of units contained one or both). Thirty-six percent of units included two or more teaching methods. Almost all schools (83%) used some problem- and/or enquiry-based learning. Educator backgrounds included medicine, nursing, and allied health. A majority of schools (n = 9, 75%) involved people with intellectual disability designing and teaching content, but the extent to which this occurred was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Renewing curricula around intellectual disability across all medical schools by introducing varied teaching methods and the inclusion of people with intellectual disability would assist students to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, and confidence in intellectual disability health. Such renewal offers the potential to reduce barriers to service this population regularly face, thereby improving their health outcomes.

Intellectual disability health content within medical curriculum: an audit of what our future doctors are taught.

BACKGROUND: There is a high burden of unmet health needs for people with intellectual disability. Despite experiencing significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with the general population, this group faces greater barriers to accessing healthcare. While increasing workplace capacity is one way to reduce this inequitable access, previous research indicates a scarcity of undergraduate teaching in intellectual disability. The aim of the study was to determine the extent and nature of intellectual disability content currently offered within medical degree curricula. METHODS: All Australian universities (n = 20) providing accredited medical training were invited to participate in a two-phase audit via an email invitation to the Dean of each medical school. The Dean's delegate from 14 medical schools completed Phase 1, which involved a questionnaire or telephone interview about the overall medical course structure. Unit coordinators and/or teaching staff from 12 medical schools completed Phase 2, which involved an online survey about intellectual disability content within the curriculum. RESULTS: In Australia, medical school curricula contain a median of 2.55 h of compulsory intellectual disability content. The majority of universities only offer a small amount of compulsory content. Of compulsory units, intellectual disability teaching is minimal in sexual health and emergency medicine (only one unit offered in one school for each). Topics of key relevance in intellectual disability health such as human rights issues, interdisciplinary team work and preventative health are poorly represented in intellectual disability teaching. Elective content varies markedly across universities (1 to 122 h), but emergency medicine, women's health, men's health and many other specialist medicine areas are not represented. Inclusive practice is inconsistent in degree and nature, but a majority of universities (nine) involve people with intellectual disability in the development or delivery of content. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between the considerable unmet health needs of people with intellectual disability and the inconsistent teaching within medical schools. Future doctors will be better equipped to support the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability if curricula are enhanced in this area.

Central nervous system medication use in older adults with intellectual disability: Results from the successful ageing in intellectual disability study.

OBJECTIVE: Information on the rates and predictors of polypharmacy of central nervous system medication in older people with intellectual disability is limited, despite the increased life expectancy of this group. This study examined central nervous system medication use in an older sample of people with intellectual disability. METHODS: Data regarding demographics, psychiatric diagnoses and current medications were collected as part of a larger survey completed by carers of people with intellectual disability over the age of 40 years. Recruitment occurred predominantly via disability services across different urban and rural locations in New South Wales and Victoria. Medications were coded according to the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties central nervous system medication categories, including sedatives/hypnotics, anti-anxiety agents, antipsychotics, antidepressants, central nervous system stimulants, movement disorder medications and anticonvulsants. The Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults was used to assess behaviour. RESULTS: Data were available for 114 people with intellectual disability. In all, 62.3% of the sample was prescribed a central nervous system medication, with 47.4% taking more than one. Of those who were medicated, 46.5% had a neurological diagnosis (a seizure disorder or Parkinson's disease) and 45.1% had a psychiatric diagnosis (an affective or psychotic disorder). Linear regression revealed that polypharmacy was predicted by the presence of neurological and psychiatric diagnosis, higher Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults scores and male gender. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to focus on central nervous system medication in an older sample with intellectual disability. The findings are in line with the wider literature in younger people, showing a high degree of prescription and polypharmacy. Within the sample, there seems to be adequate rationale for central nervous system medication prescription. Although these data do not indicate non-adherence to guidelines for prescribing in intellectual disability, the high rate of polypharmacy and its relationship to Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults scores reiterate the importance of continued medication review in older people with intellectual disability.