Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality & costs of community residential supports for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and challenging behaviour (CB).
AU - Emerson, Eric
AU - Robertson, Janet
AU - Felce, D.
AU - Meek, A.
AU - Carr, D.
AU - Knapp, Martin
AU - Hallam, Angela
PY - 2004/6
Y1 - 2004/6
N2 - Aim: To compare the cost effectiveness of two approaches to providing community residential supports to people with ID and CB: non-congregate settings where the minority of residents have CB and congregate settings where the majority of residents have CB. Method: Longitudinal matched groups design. N = 25 per group. Data collect at two points in time separated by 12 months. Main outcome measures: costs of service provision, nature of support provided, quality of life of residents (including choice, activities, social networks, risks and community involvement), views of families, views of neighbours, and staff stress and morale. Results: Congregate care was associated with higher costs, higher staffing ratios, and better quality internal working practices. However, these inputs did not translate to better outcomes for residents. Non-congregate care was associated with greater access to day activities, less reliance on medication and physical restraint to control CB, and less risk. Levels of staff contact and participant engagement were low in both models of care. Conclusions: Noncongregate settings are more cost effective. The results reinforce existing government guidance in the UK that care should be taken to avoid congregating together people with CB.
AB - Aim: To compare the cost effectiveness of two approaches to providing community residential supports to people with ID and CB: non-congregate settings where the minority of residents have CB and congregate settings where the majority of residents have CB. Method: Longitudinal matched groups design. N = 25 per group. Data collect at two points in time separated by 12 months. Main outcome measures: costs of service provision, nature of support provided, quality of life of residents (including choice, activities, social networks, risks and community involvement), views of families, views of neighbours, and staff stress and morale. Results: Congregate care was associated with higher costs, higher staffing ratios, and better quality internal working practices. However, these inputs did not translate to better outcomes for residents. Non-congregate care was associated with greater access to day activities, less reliance on medication and physical restraint to control CB, and less risk. Levels of staff contact and participant engagement were low in both models of care. Conclusions: Noncongregate settings are more cost effective. The results reinforce existing government guidance in the UK that care should be taken to avoid congregating together people with CB.
U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2004.t01-1-00609.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2004.t01-1-00609.x
M3 - Journal article
VL - 48
SP - 415
EP - 415
JO - Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
JF - Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
SN - 0964-2633
IS - 4-5
ER -