Telepsychiatry for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health difficulties during Covid-19 pandemic: survey of self-reported experience and acceptability to patients, carers and psychiatrists in the UK

Abstract

Aim: This project sought to ascertain views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities, their carers’, and specialist intellectual disability psychiatrists as to use of telepsychiatry consultations.

Background: During the Covid-19 pandemic specialist psychiatrists in intellectual disability services in the United Kingdom (UK) have explored and adopted use of telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations.

Method: An easy-read co-designed questionnaire was sent to potential respondents N = 590 potential respondents (N = 280 patients, N = 280 carers), and a separate questionnaire was sent electronically to N = 30 specialist intellectual disability psychiatrists.

Findings: Responses were received from N = 192 respondents (N = 68 (24%) patients, N = 98 (35%) carers, and N = 26 (90%)) psychiatrists. Advantages of telepsychiatry cited were flexibility, and it being less disruptive to patients’ routines, offering convenient practice and saving travel time and cost. Disadvantages reported included loss of rapport and relationship with patients, and an inability to conduct an effective mental state examination.

Conclusion: This survey has produced equivocal evidence as to acceptability of telepsychiatry for all people with intellectual disabilities, carers and psychiatrists cannot be assumed. Some patients may need significant support to enable them to engage with such an approach.

Keywords:

• telepsychiatry
• consultations
• survey
• intellectual disabilities
• patients
• carers
• specialist psychiatrists
• reported experience

Acknowledgements

The author(s) would like to acknowledge the assistance of the expert by experience group for the Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust for their help with the construction of the easy read questionnaires, and the patients and psychiatrists for their for their effort and time in completing them.

Ethical considerations

The Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Ethics committee classified this QIP as a service evaluation. Therefore, its remit fell outside normal governance arrangements of NHS research committees; nonetheless, permission was granted for this QIP to be undertaken.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

The authors declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research., authorship, and/or publication of this article.