Search results

A region’s transforming care partnership identified that autistic adults without an intellectual disability (ID) may be falling through gaps in services when presenting with a significant emotional and/or behavioural need in the absence of a mental health diagnosis. The region’s intensive support teams (ISTs) for adults with ID therefore piloted a short-term “behavioural support service” for this population. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this pilot.

This study represents a mixed-methods service evaluation over a four year pilot period. The quantitative component examined referral rates and demographic data of accepted and declined referrals; and length of referral episodes and Health of The Nation Outcomes Scores (HoNOS) for accepted referrals. The qualitative component used thematic analysis to identify key themes relating to reasons for referral, clinical/therapeutic needs, and the models of support that most informed assessments and interventions at individual and systems levels.

The ISTs accepted 30 referrals and declined 53. Most accepted referrals were male (83%), and under 24 years old (57%). Average HoNOS scores were above the thresholds generally associated with hospital admission. Key qualitative themes were: transitional support; sexual risks/vulnerabilities; physical aggression; domestic violence; and attachment, trauma and personality difficulties. Support mostly followed psychotherapeutic modalities couched in trauma, attachment and second- and third-wave cognitive behavioural therapies. Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) did not emerge as a model of preference for service users or professionals.

This project represents one of the first of this type for autistic adults without an ID in the UK. It provides recommendations for future service development and research, with implications for Transforming Care policy and guidance.

This paper is a commentary on COVID-19’s impact on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs), the system in England and Wales that enables learning from domestic abuse-related deaths.

Drawing on a practitioner–researcher perspective, this paper reflects on how COVID-19 affected the delivery and experience of DHRs, the place of victims at the heart of this process and what the pandemic’s impact might mean moving forward.

This paper explicates some of the challenges of undertaking DHRs in a pandemic. Critically, however, it argues that these challenges illuminate broader questions about the practice of DHR.

This paper’s originality comes from the author’s practitioner–researcher perspective and its use of COVID-19 as a lens to consider DHRs.