Perceptions to Care, (Education) and Treatment Reviews (C(E)TRs) of Mental Health Clinicians Working with Adults with Intellectual Disability in England: A Cross-Sectional Study
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Amiola, Ayomipo
Patteril, Elizabeth
Chester, Verity
Tromans, Samuel
Triantafyllopoulou, Paraskevi
Price, Jay M.
Purandare, Kiran
Sawhney, Indermeet
Courtenay, Ken
Roy, Ashok
Check for full-text access
Issue Date
07/07/2025
Type
Journal article
Language
Keywords
Mental Health
Alternative Title
Abstract
Introduction: Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews (C(E)TR) are meetings to review individualized needs of people with intellectual disabilities (PwID) at risk of or currently undergoing psychiatric hospitalization. We aimed to understand C(E)TR impact and effectiveness from professionals working with PwID. Methods: An online mixed-methodology survey which included 34 questions (either Likert or free text) was shared with networks including relevant professionals. Quantitative data are presented descriptively. Thematic analysis was conducted on free-text responses. Results: Of 66 people representing multiple intellectual disability teams across the UK, 67% found the C(E)TR process useful, 35% felt C(E)TRs made a difference to their clinical care, while 36% felt it did not. Thematic analysis showed four overarching themesj: processes and structures, recommendations, accountability, and statutory vs. advisory. Word missing after advisory? Conclusion: Clinicians find C(E)TRs useful for their practice but remain concerned about significant clinical risks and service issues beyond their control which C(E)TRs fail to identify
Description
Citation
Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2025.2525834
Publisher
License
Journal
Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Volume
19
Issue
1