ArticleMental health in family medicine2011
Compiling a register of patients with moderate or severe learning disabilities: experience at one United Kingdom general practice.
Article in Mental health in family medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Access to preventive health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a systematic scoping review informed by the Levesque Access Framework.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Identifying people with a learning disability: an advanced search for general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Identifying patients with learning disabilities within primary care is central to initiatives for improving the health of this population. UK general practitioners (GPs) receive additional income for maintaining registers of patients with learning disabilities as part of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and may opt to provide Directed Enhanced Services (DES), which requires practices to maintain registers of patients with moderate or severe learning disabilities and offer them annual health checks.Objectives This paper describes the development of a register of patients with moderate or severe learning disabilities at one UK general practice.Methods A Read code search of one UK general practice's electronic medical records was conducted in order to identify patients with learning disabilities. Confirmation of diagnoses was sought by scrutinising records and GP verification. Cross-referencing with the practice QOF register of patients with learning disabilities of any severity, and the local authority's list of clients with learning disabilities, was performed.Results Of 15 001 patients, 229 (1.5%) were identified by the Read code search as possibly having learning disabilities. Scrutiny of records and GP verification confirmed 64 had learning disabilities and 24 did not, but the presence or absence of learning disability remained unclear in 141 cases. Cross-referencing with the QOF register (n=81) and local authority list (n=49) revealed little overlap.Conclusion Identifying learning disability and assessing its severity are tasks GPs may be unfamiliar with, and relying on Read code searches may result in under-detection. Further research is needed to define optimum strategies for identifying, cross-referencing and validating practice-based registers of patients with learning disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22479290PMC3134211What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.