Search results

Patients who have intellectual disability and mental illness will occasionally need inpatient treatment. However, research is sparse on psychosocial factors influencing psychiatric units for patients with intellectual disabilities. The aim of this study is to examine whether adults with intellectual disabilities can reliably rate the Ward Atmosphere Scale – Real Ward (WAS‐R).

A total of 17 patients with mild and moderate intellectual disability and 21 staff members were asked to complete the WAS‐R. The authors used six subscales (involvement, support, practical orientation, order and organisation, angry and aggressive behaviour, and staff control) that have proved to be of major importance for patient satisfaction and treatment outcome to measure the patients' and the staff members' perceptions of the treatment milieu. To examine the internal consistency Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the patient and staff scores, respectively.

A total of 16 patients completed the form. Patients with mild intellectual disabilities were able to answer the WAS with some help, whereas patients with moderate intellectual disabilities had major difficulties with understanding more than half of the WAS items. These difficulties were also reflected in the internal consistency scores. Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory (≥0.50) for five subscales for patients with mild intellectual disabilities, but only satisfactory for two of the six subscales for patients with moderate intellectual disabilities.

A replication study should use a shorter version of the WAS‐R, and family or caregivers should answer the WAS‐R additionally to the patients.

This study may encourage more research on treatment milieu for patients with intellectual disability and mental illness.

The UKU side effect rating scale for adults with intellectual disabilities (UKU-SERS-ID) was developed to detect side effects among patients with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and face validity of the UKU-SERS-ID.

UKU-SERS-ID comprises 35 items. In total, 22 patients with ID were included from two specialized services for adults with ID and comorbid mental illness. All patients were rated on three different occasions by three clinicians; two nurses and one medical doctor. Reliability was estimated with Cohen’s κ. A focus group discussed the face validity of the items comprising the UKU-SERS-ID.

Respectively ten (nurse-nurse scores) and eight (nurse-doctor scores) items were considered difficult to score due to low prevalence of the symptoms. For the other items the reliability was acceptable. Through discussion in a focus group, with the reliability scores in mind, only one of the items of the UKU-SERS-ID was discarded.

The authors have developed a feasible side effect instrument for clinical practice. It is easy to score and relevant regarding important side effects.

The UKU-SERS-ID seems to be a feasible tool. Further investigations are mandatory in order to gain knowledge about distribution and phenomenology of side effects from psychotropic medication for individuals with ID.

Patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) and additional psychiatric disorders are often treated with psychotropic medication. However, examinations of side effects among these patients are scarce. The purpose of this pilot study is to examine the most frequently used side effect scale, UKU Side Effect Rating Scale (UKU-SERS), in this patient population.

The aim of the present study is to explore whether the UKU-SERS is feasible for patients with ID. The UKU-SERS consists originally of 48 items, measuring side effects of psychotropic medication. In the study, UKU-SERS was used to score a group of 13 adults with ID admitted to a specialised inpatient psychiatric unit. First, an expert panel of seven psychiatrists and five psychiatric nurses independently evaluated the UKU-SERS and decided which items they considered possible to score after observation alone. Second, a total of 26 staff members, based on observation, scored the 13 patients on the ward. These results were used as the basis for recommending items from UKU-SERS to be used. Items scored differently by the two groups were examined more thoroughly.

The expert panel and the ward staff agreed on 24 of the original 48 UKU-SERS items. The other 24 items were examined more thoroughly based on clinical meaningfulness. Consequently, 11 more items were included despite disagreement in the scorer groups. As expected, items that are based on observations seem more feasible than items based on the patients’ subjective experiences.

The revised checklist comprises 35 items and seems applicable for further research and for use in clinical settings for this patient population. It is possible to observe important side effects using the UKU Side Effect Scale, but adjustment of the scale is desirable to make it more appropriate for the specific purpose and target group.