Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders: investigation of 39 Dutch case reports (2012-2021).

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia review committees (Regionale Toetsingscommissies Euthanasie, RTE) scrutinise all Dutch cases of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) to review whether six legal 'due care' criteria are met, including 'unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement'. There are significant complexities and ethical dilemmas if EAS requests are made by people with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorders (ASD). AIMS: To describe the characteristics and circumstances of people with intellectual disabilities and/or ASD who were granted their EAS request; investigate the main causes of suffering that led to the EAS request; and examine physicians' response to the request. METHOD: The online RTE database of 927 EAS case reports (2012-2021) was searched for patients with intellectual disabilities and/or ASD (n = 39). Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on these case reports, using the framework method. RESULTS: Factors directly associated with intellectual disability and/or ASD were the sole cause of suffering described in 21% of cases and a major contributing factor in a further 42% of cases. Reasons for the EAS request included social isolation and loneliness (77%), lack of resilience or coping strategies (56%), lack of flexibility (rigid thinking or difficulty adapting to change) (44%) and oversensitivity to stimuli (26%). In one-third of cases, physicians noted there was 'no prospect of improvement' as ASD and intellectual disability are not treatable. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of societal support for suffering associated with lifelong disability, and debates around the acceptability of these factors as reasons for granting EAS, are of international importance.

The case for removing intellectual disability and autism from the Mental Health Act.

Intellectual disability (also known as learning disability in UK health services) and autism are distinct from the serious mental illnesses for which the Mental Health Act is designed to be used. Their inclusion in the definition of mental disorder is discriminatory, resulting in unjust deprivations of liberty. Intellectual disability and autism should be excluded from the Mental Health Act. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder: an examination of nine relevant euthanasia cases in the Netherlands (2012-2016).

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) have been legally possible in the Netherlands since 2001, provided that statutory due care criteria are met, including: (a) voluntary and well-considered request; (b) unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement; (c) informing the patient; (d) lack of a reasonable alternative; (e) independent second physician's opinion. 'Unbearable suffering' must have a medical basis, either somatic or psychiatric, but there is no requirement of limited life expectancy. All EAS cases must be reported and are scrutinised by regional review committees (RTE). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether any particular difficulties arise when the EAS due care criteria are applied to patients with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder. METHODS: The 416 case summaries available on the RTE website (2012-2016) were searched for intellectual disability (6) and autism spectrum disorder (3). Direct content analysis was used on these nine cases. RESULTS: Assessment of decisional capacity was mentioned in eight cases, but few details given; in two cases, there had been uncertainty or disagreement about capacity. Two patients had progressive somatic conditions. For most, suffering was due to an inability to cope with changing circumstances or increasing dependency; in several cases, suffering was described in terms of characteristics of living with an autism spectrum disorder, rather than an acquired medical condition. Some physicians struggled to understand the patient's perspective. Treatment refusal was a common theme, leading physicians to conclude that EAS was the only remaining option. There was a lack of detail on social circumstances and how patients were informed about their prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy and decisional capacity are highly complex for patients with intellectual disabilities and difficult to assess; capacity tests in these cases did not appear sufficiently stringent. Assessment of suffering is particularly difficult for patients who have experienced life-long disability. The sometimes brief time frames and limited number of physician-patient meetings may not be sufficient to make a decision as serious as EAS. The Dutch EAS due care criteria are not easily applied to people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder, and do not appear to act as adequate safeguards.

Challenges and mental health needs of women in prison.

The world population of women and girls in prison is increasing. Evidence points to high rates of mental health problems. Approaches to these problems vary and include both psychiatric epidemiology and gender-sensitive understanding and intervention. Prison environments and women prisoners' needs are complex and demand gender-aware care in view of women's vulnerability and histories of trauma. Declaration of interest A.B. was a clinical director of the offender care services at Central and North West London National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust until August 2016, with responsibility for several women's prison healthcare services in London and the South East, and is currently clinical director of NHS England London Health in Justice Clinical Network, paid as a salary one day a week.

Role confusion as a barrier to effective carer involvement for people with intellectual disabilities in acute hospitals: findings from a mixed-method study.

AIMS: To understand issues around carer roles that affect carer involvement for people with intellectual disabilities in acute hospitals. BACKGROUND: There is evidence that a lack of effective carer involvement can lead to poorer health outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities, but there is a lack of insight into the reasons for poor carer involvement in acute hospitals. DESIGN: Mixed methods in six acute hospital trusts in England (2011-2013). METHODS: Electronic hospital staff survey (n = 990), carer questionnaires (n = 88), semi-structured interviews with hospital staff (n = 68) and carers (n = 37). Data were triangulated and analysed using a conceptual framework. RESULTS: There was strong support for carer involvement among hospital staff, and most carers indicated that they felt welcomed and supported. However, an investigation of negative experiences showed that there were discrepancies in the perspectives of hospital staff and carers on the scope of 'carer involvement'. An important contributory factor to the effectiveness of carer involvement was the degree to which staff understood the importance of carer expertise (rather than simply carer work) and welcomed it. Carers' contributions to basic nursing care tasks could be taken for granted by hospital staff, sometimes erroneously. CONCLUSION: The roles and contributions of carers should be clarified on an individual basis by hospital staff. The authors propose a new model to support this clarification. Further research is needed to assess the suitability of the model for patients with intellectual disabilities and other vulnerable patient groups.

The challenges in monitoring and preventing patient safety incidents for people with intellectual disabilities in NHS acute hospitals: evidence from a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There has been evidence in recent years that people with intellectual disabilities in acute hospitals are at risk of preventable deterioration due to failures of the healthcare services to implement the reasonable adjustments they need. The aim of this paper is to explore the challenges in monitoring and preventing patient safety incidents involving people with intellectual disabilities, to describe patient safety issues faced by patients with intellectual disabilities in NHS acute hospitals, and investigate underlying contributory factors. METHODS: This was a 21-month mixed-method study involving interviews, questionnaires, observation and monitoring of incident reports to assess the implementation of recommendations designed to improve care provided for patients with intellectual disabilities and explore the factors that compromise or promote patient safety. Six acute NHS Trusts in England took part. Data collection included: questionnaires to clinical hospital staff (n = 990); questionnaires to carers (n = 88); interviews with: hospital staff including senior managers, nurses and doctors (n = 68) and carers (n = 37); observation of in-patients with intellectual disabilities (n = 8); monitoring of incident reports (n = 272) and complaints involving people with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Staff did not always readily identify patient safety issues or report them. Incident reports focused mostly around events causing immediate or potential physical harm, such as falls. Hospitals lacked effective systems for identifying patients with intellectual disabilities within their service, making monitoring safety incidents for this group difficult.The safety issues described by the participants were mostly related to delays and omissions of care, in particular: inadequate provision of basic nursing care, misdiagnosis, delayed investigations and treatment, and non-treatment decisions and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders. CONCLUSIONS: The events leading to avoidable harm for patients with intellectual disabilities are not always recognised as safety incidents, and may be difficult to attribute as causal to the harm suffered. Acts of omission (failure to give care) are more difficult to recognise, capture and monitor than acts of commission (giving the wrong care). In order to improve patient safety for this group, the reasonable adjustments needed by individual patients should be identified, documented and monitored.

Preventing 'deaths by indifference': identification of reasonable adjustments is key.

People with intellectual disabilities are at risk of premature death due to failings in healthcare provision. To prevent this, it is important for healthcare services to identify and flag not only vulnerable conditions (including intellectual disability, dementia and mental health problems), but also the specific adjustments needed by individual patients.

The barriers to and enablers of providing reasonably adjusted health services to people with intellectual disabilities in acute hospitals: evidence from a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors that promote and compromise the implementation of reasonably adjusted healthcare services for patients with intellectual disabilities in acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study involving interviews, questionnaires and participant observation (July 2011-March 2013). SETTING: Six acute NHS hospital trusts in England. METHODS: Reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disabilities were identified through the literature. Data were collected on implementation and staff understanding of these adjustments. RESULTS: Data collected included staff questionnaires (n=990), staff interviews (n=68), interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities (n=33), questionnaires (n=88) and interviews (n=37) with carers of patients with intellectual disabilities, and expert panel discussions (n=42). Hospital strategies that supported implementation of reasonable adjustments did not reliably translate into consistent provision of such adjustments. Good practice often depended on the knowledge, understanding and flexibility of individual staff and teams, leading to the delivery of reasonable adjustments being haphazard throughout the organisation. Major barriers included: lack of effective systems for identifying and flagging patients with intellectual disabilities, lack of staff understanding of the reasonable adjustments that may be needed, lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability for implementing reasonable adjustments, and lack of allocation of additional funding and resources. Key enablers were the Intellectual Disability Liaison Nurse and the ward manager. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that ward culture, staff attitudes and staff knowledge are crucial in ensuring that hospital services are accessible to vulnerable patients. The authors suggest that flagging the need for specific reasonable adjustments, rather than the vulnerable condition itself, may address some of the barriers. Further research is recommended that describes and quantifies the most frequently needed reasonable adjustments within the hospital pathways of vulnerable patient groups, and the most effective organisational infrastructure required to guarantee their use, together with resource implications.

Exploring the lived experiences of people with learning disabilities who are dying of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Growing numbers of people with learning disabilities are living longer and dying of age related illnesses such as cancer. AIM: To explore the experiences of people with learning disabilities who have cancer. METHOD: The study used participant observation with 13 people with learning disabilities. All had a cancer diagnosis and 10 were terminally ill. Participants were visited regularly at home and in other settings, including hospitals. RESULTS: The main themes were: dependent lives; deprived lives; truth telling and understanding; the importance of families; inexperienced carers and unprepared services; and resilience. CONCLUSION: To understand the experiences of people with learning disabilities who are dying of cancer, it is important to understand their previous life experiences and key relationships. Healthcare professionals who treat people with respect, dignity and openness can make a positive difference to their care.

Disclosure and understanding of cancer diagnosis and prognosis for people with intellectual disabilities: findings from an ethnographic study.

PURPOSE: Growing numbers of people with intellectual disabilities are diagnosed with a life-limiting illness such as cancer. Little is known about disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis to this group. The study aim was to explore how much people with intellectual disabilities who have cancer understand about their diagnosis and prognosis, and to explore how much they are told about their cancer. METHOD: 13 people with intellectual disabilities and cancer took part in a 3-year ethnographic study. Data collection consisted mostly of participant observation. Participants were visited regularly for a median of 7 months. RESULTS: Eleven participants were told that they had cancer, but most were not helped to understand the implications of this diagnosis or their prognosis. Decisions around disclosure, as well as the task of truth-telling, rested mostly with relatives and paid carers. Those with severe/profound intellectual disabilities were most likely to be protected from the truth. Understanding was affected by cognitive ability, life experience and truth-telling. Lack of understanding affected the ability to take decisions about treatment and care. CONCLUSIONS: Existing models for breaking bad news are inadequate for people with intellectual disabilities. The findings suggest that more open communication is needed, but further studies are needed to establish best practice in this area.