Racial microaggressions occur when subtle or often automatic exchanges of aversive and covert racism are directed towards people identifying as racialized groups. Consequently, affecting individuals' mental and physical health. Healthcare professionals are a vulnerable group to the effects of racial microaggressions, given the high prevalence of burnout. The aim of the review was to explore healthcare professionals and students' experience of racial microaggressions in healthcare settings

A PROSPERO registered scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. The literature search was undertaken in August 2020, of five databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMCARE and we also searched the ‘grey literature.’ Studies featuring primary data on racialized or migrant microaggressions towards professionals or students in healthcare settings were included. We excluded studies that were not in English. QDA Miner was used to analyse the data, using a non-essentialist perspective, which suggests that ‘culture’ is a movable concept used by different people at different times to suit purposes of identity, politics and science.

Our search identified 8 papers (5 qualitative, 2 mixed and 1 quantitative) on the experience of microaggressions towards healthcare professionals and students (n = 602). Almost all (87.5%) were conducted in North America and only one (12.5%) in the UK. The primary themes were as follows:

Intersectionality: Individual and group social categorizations of race, class, and gender were described as interconnected, leading to interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. Healthcare professionals indicated that increasing diversity and racial representation can reduce bias and thus microaggressions among stakeholders in the culture of work.

Workplace culture and lack of senior support: The healthcare curriculum, and the manner of its delivery were found to propagate ideas encouraging racial microaggressions. Seniors behaving as role-models by challenging microaggressions could encourage an open and accountable environment. Supervision was a tool for allyship that reduced the threat of negative race-related incidents.

Intervention: Acknowledging racial microaggressions within healthcare, as well as quantifying their presence with tools, encouraged a stronger and more effective response from institutions. Teaching curriculum also served as a useful platform to teach and address microaggressions.

Racial microaggressions were experienced as having a detrimental impact on healthcare professionals’ well-being and mental health. Consequently, this affected the efficiency, the workplace culture, patient outcomes and job satisfaction. Given the multifaceted nature of racial microaggressions, tackling them requires a complex and wide-ranging response from institutions.

Brain in Hand (BIH) is a UK-based digital self-support system for managing anxiety and social functioning.

To identify the impact of BIH on the psychological and social functioning of adults with autism.

Adults with diagnosed or suspected DSM-5 (level 1) autism, identified by seven NHS autism services in England and Wales, were recruited for a 12-week prospective mixed-methods cohort study. The primary quantitative outcome measures were the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HONOS-LD) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Fisher's exact test explored sociodemographic associations. Paired t-test was utilised for pre–post analysis of overall effectiveness of BIH. Multivariable linear regression models, univariable pre–post analysis, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, logistic regression analysis, Bonferroni correction and normative analysis were used to give confidence in changes identified. A thematic analysis of semi-structured exist interviews following Braun and Clarke's six-step process of 10% of participants who completed the study was undertaken.

Sixty-six of 99 participants completed the study. There was significant reduction in mean HONOS-LD scores, with 0.65 s.d. decrease in those who used BIH for 12 weeks. Significant positive changes were identified in HONOS-LD subdomains of ‘self-injurious behaviours’, ‘memory and orientation’, ‘communication problems in understanding’, ‘occupation and activities’ and ‘problems with relationship’. A significant reduction in the anxiety, but not depression, component of the HADS scores was identified. Thematic analysis showed high confidence in BIH.

BIH improved anxiety and other clinical, social and functioning outcomes of adults with autism.

Psychological stress has an established bi-directional relationship with obesity. Mindfulness techniques reduce stress and improve eating behaviours, but their long-term impact remains untested. CALMPOD (Compassionate Approach to Living Mindfully for Prevention of Disease) is a psychoeducational mindfulness-based course evidenced to improve eating patterns across a 6-month period, possibly by reducing stress. However, no long-term evaluation of impact exists.

This study retrospectively evaluates 2-year outcomes of CALMPOD on patient engagement, weight and metabolic markers.

All adults with a body mass index >35 kg/m2 attending an UK obesity service during 2016–2020 were offered CALMPOD. Those who refused CALMPOD were offered standard lifestyle advice. Routine clinic data over 2 years, including age, gender, 6-monthly appointment attendance, weight, haemoglobin A1C and total cholesterol, were pooled and analysed to evaluate CALMPOD.

Of 289 patients, 163 participated in the CALMPOD course and 126 did not. No baseline demographic differences existed between the participating and non-participating groups. The CALMPOD group had improved attendance across all 6-monthly appointments compared with the non-CALMPOD group (P < 0.05). Mean body weight reduction at 2 years was 5.6 kg (s.d. 11.2, P < 0.001) for the CALMPOD group compared with 3.9 kg (s.d. 10.5, P < 0.001) for the non-CALMPOD group. No differences in haemoglobin A1C and fasting serum total cholesterol were identified between the groups.

The retrospective evaluation of CALMPOD suggests potential for mindfulness and compassion-based group educational techniques to improve longer-term patient and clinical outcomes. Prospective large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the impact of stress on obesity and the true impact of CALMPOD.

People living with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have suffered disproportionately in health outcomes and general well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is emerging evidence of increased psychological distress. Increased strain has also fallen on clinicians managing the psychological needs of people with IDD, in the context of learning new technologies, staff shortages, reduced services and paused training opportunities.

To examine clinicians’ experiences of patient care, clinical management and the impact of care delivery.

A mixed fixed-response and free-text survey comprising 28 questions covering four areas (responder demographics, clinical practice, changes to local services and clinician experiences) was developed, using the STROBE guidance. It was disseminated through an exponential snowballing technique to clinicians in seven high-income countries. Quantitative data were analysed and presented with Microsoft Excel. Qualitative data were coded and thematically analysed, and presented with in-text quotations.

There were 139 respondents, mostly senior physicians (71%). Two-thirds reported over 10 years working in the field. Quantitative findings include increased clinician stress (77%), referrals (53%), patient distress presentations (>70%), patient isolation (73%) and carer burden (89%), and reduced patient participation in daily activities (86%). A third reported increased psychotropic prescribing. Qualitative analysis outlined changes to clinical practice, particularly the emergence and impact of telehealth.

In the countries surveyed, the pandemic has not only had a significant impact on people with IDD, but also their carers and clinicians. A proactive, holistic international response is needed in preparedness for future public health emergencies.

There has been an increase in the development and application of serious games to support management of mental ill health, but their full impact is unclear.

Evaluation of the current evidence of acceptability and effectiveness of serious games in improving mental health disorders.

A PRISMA-guided scoping review was conducted, using a predefined criteria and a relevant word combination on three databases: EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO. Each included study was examined for game format, study type, number of participants, basic demographics, disorder targeted, recruitment, setting, control conditions, duration and follow-up, study attrition, primary outcomes and their results. Each study was given a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating for quality.

Fourteen out of 513 studies met the inclusion criteria. The serious games focused on symptoms of anxiety (n = 4), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (n = 3), depression (n = 2), schizophrenia (n = 2), alcohol use disorder (n = 2) and bipolar disorder (n = 1). There were multiple significant outcomes favouring serious games across conditions covered in the review. Study quality varied, with studies rated high (n = 3), moderate (n = 6), low (n = 3) and very low (n = 2).

The available evidence suggests that serious games could be an effective format for an intervention to reduce mental health symptoms and improve outcomes of individuals. Better designed studies would further develop confidence in this area. This is a potential vehicle of change to deliver some of the much-needed psychiatric support to both economically developed and developing regions in a resource-utilitarian manner. Partnerships between the gaming industry, researchers and health services may benefit patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on people with intellectual disability (PwID). PwID are at higher risk of mental illness and receive psychotropic prescribing ‘off licence' also, to manage distress behaviour. The lockdown and reduction of multidisciplinary face-to-face appointments had an impact on care delivery, the recourse possibly being psychotropic prescribing. It is imperative to comprehend the influence the pandemic had on psychotropic prescribing patterns to enable future planning.

The aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic by comparing psychotropic prescribing patterns during the England lockdown with the prescribing patterns before lockdown in specialist urban and rural psychiatric services for PwID.

Data was collected from Cornwall (rural) and London (urban) intellectual disability services in England as a service evaluation project to rationalise psychotropic prescribing. PwID in both services open across January 2020 to January 2021 were included. Baseline patient demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual disability level and neurodevelopmental and psychological comorbidities were collected. Baseline psychotropic prescribing and subsequent % change for each psychotropic group for the two services was compared using Pearson's chi-square and z-statistic (two tailed) with significance taken at P < 0.05.

The two centres London (n = 113) and Cornwall (n = 97) were largely comparable but for baseline differences in terms of presence of severe mental illness (37 v. 86, P < 0.001), challenging behaviour (44 v. 57, P < 0.05) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (37 v. 3, P < 0.001). There was an overall increase in psychotropic prescribing during lockdown in urban as compared with rural settings (11% v. 2%).

The pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is common among people with intellectual disability. Diagnosing ADHD in this clinically and cognitively complex and diverse group is difficult, given the overlapping psychiatric and behavioural presentations. Underdiagnoses and misdiagnoses leading to irrational polypharmacy and worse health and social outcomes are common. Diagnostic interviews exist, but are cumbersome and not in regular clinical use.

We aimed to develop a screening tool to help identify people with intellectual disability and ADHD.

A prospective cross-sectional study, using STROBE guidance, invited all carers of people with intellectual disability aged 18–50 years open to the review of the psychiatric team in a single UK intellectual disability service (catchment population: 150 000). A ten-item questionnaire based on the DSM-V ADHD criteria was circulated. All respondents’ baseline clinical characteristics were recorded, and the DIVA-5-ID was administered blinded to the individual questionnaire result. Fisher exact and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to identify relevant questionnaire items and the combinations that afforded best sensitivity and specificity for predicting ADHD.

Of 78 people invited, 39 responded (26 men, 13 women), of whom 30 had moderate-to-profound intellectual disability and 38 had associated comorbidities and on were medication, including 22 on psychotropics. Thirty-six screened positive for ADHD, and 24 were diagnosed (16 men, eight women). Analysis showed two positive responses on three specific questions to have 88% sensitivity and 87% specificity, and be the best predictor of ADHD.

The three-question screening is an important development for identifying ADHD in people with intellectual disability. It needs larger-scale replication to generate generalisable results.

Differential attainment (DA) amongst Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) medical students and postgraduate trainees including Psychiatry trainees has been extensively documented in medical education, with non-white medical students being 2.5 times more likely to fail high-stake examinations compared to their White counterparts. The Equality Act 2010 places a responsibility on public bodies such as Royal Colleges to address discrimination in training and assessment. Understanding DA in undergraduate medical education can help understand DA in the postgraduate setting. Consequently, this systematic review aims to detect the processes that enable and impede DA in UK undergraduate medical education.

Seven online databases including PubMed, Scopus, PyschInfo, and ERIC were searched. A formal grey literature search was also conducted. Inclusion criteria comprised studies dated from January 1995 to present and included UK undergraduate medical students. We present the preliminary findings from 13 papers, analysed to create a conceptual framework for a further mixed methods analysis. The studies were critically appraised for methodological quality.

Five key themes emerged from the preliminary analysis of 13 papers. BAME students experienced:

Being ‘divergent’: Not feeling part of the current organisational learning milieu

Lack of social capital: Difficulty in being absorbed into existing ‘networks’ of relationships in a manner that is ‘approachable’ and not ‘intimidating’

Continuum of discrimination: ‘Indirect’ impact of subtle communication processes in the learning environment undermining individual ‘belief’ in own performance

Institutional discriminatory factors: Culture, rules, norms, and behavioural routines of educators that lead to differential outcomes for learners

Lack of external support: Relative lack of interventions tackling DA.

The key finding of this review is that British BAME undergraduate medical students experience discriminatory behaviours early in medical schools that impact on personal, educational, and professional outcomes. These factors may need to be borne in mind by postgraduate training organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists as they commence the challenging task of addressing DA.

A significant number of people with autism require in-patient psychiatric care. Although the requirement to adequately meet the needs of people with autism in these settings is enshrined in UK law and supported by national guidelines, little information is available on current practice.

To describe characteristics of UK in-patient psychiatric settings admitting people with autism. Also to examine psychiatric units for their suitability, and the resultant impact on admission length and restrictive interventions.

Multiple-choice questions about in-patient settings and their ability to meet the needs of people with autism and the impact on their outcomes were developed as a cross-sectional study co-designed with a national autism charity. The survey was distributed nationally, using an exponential and non-discriminatory snowballing technique, to in-patient unit clinicians to provide a current practice snapshot.

Eighty responses were analysed after excluding duplications, from across the UK. Significant variation between units across all enquired parameters exist. Lack of autism-related training and skills across staff groups was identified, this becoming disproportionate when comparing intellectual disability units with general mental health units particularly regarding psychiatrists working in these units (psychiatrists: 94% specialist skills in intellectual disability units versus 6% specialist skills in general mental health units). In total, 28% of survey respondents felt people with autism are more likely to be subject to seclusion and 40% believed in-patients with autism are likely to end in segregation.

There is no systematic approach to supporting people with autism who are admitted to in-patient psychiatric units. Significant concerns are highlighted of lack of professional training and skill sets resulting in variable clinical practice and care delivery underpinned by policy deficiency. This could account for the reported in-patient outcomes of longer stay and segregation experienced by people with autism.

The approach taken to support individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic needs to take into account the requirements of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism, who represent a major vulnerable group, with higher rates of co-occurring health conditions and a greater risk of dying prematurely. To date, little evidence on COVID-related concerns have been produced and no report has provided structured feedback from the point of view of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism or of their family/carers.

To provide systemised evidence-based information of the priority concerns for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senior representatives of major UK-based professional and service-user representative organisations with a stake in the care of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism were contacted to provide a list of concerns across three domains: ‘mental health and challenging behaviour’, ‘physical health and epilepsy’ and ‘social circumstances and support’. The feedback was developed into statements on frequently reported priorities. These statements were then rated independently by expert clinicians. A video-conference meeting to reconcile outliers and to generate a consensus statement list was held.

Thirty-two organisations were contacted, of which 26 (81%) replied. From the respondent's data, 30 draft consensus statements were generated. Following expert clinician review, there was initially strong consensus for seven statements (23%), increasing to 27 statements (90%) following video conferencing.

These recommendations highlight the expectations of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism in the current pandemic. This could support policymakers and professionals’ deliver and evidence person-centred care.

Rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected people with intellectual disability disproportionately. Existing data does not provide enough information to understand factors associated with increased deaths in those with intellectual disability. Establishing who is at high risk is important in developing prevention strategies, given risk factors or comorbidities in people with intellectual disability may be different to those in the general population.

To identify comorbidities, demographic and clinical factors of those individuals with intellectual disability who have died from COVID-19.

An observational descriptive case series looking at deaths because of COVID-19 in people with intellectual disability was conducted. Along with established risk factors observed in the general population, possible specific risk factors and comorbidities in people with intellectual disability for deaths related to COVID-19 were examined. Comparisons between mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability subcohorts were undertaken.

Data on 66 deaths in individuals with intellectual disability were analysed. This group was younger (mean age 64 years) compared with the age of death in the general population because of COVID-19. High rates of moderate-to-profound intellectual disability (n = 43), epilepsy (n = 29), mental illness (n = 29), dysphagia (n = 23), Down syndrome (n = 20) and dementia (n = 15) were observed.

This is the first study exploring associations between possible risk factors and comorbidities found in COVID-19 deaths in people with intellectual disability. Our data provides insight into possible factors for deaths in people with intellectual disability. Some of the factors varied between the mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability groups. This highlights an urgent need for further systemic inquiry and study of the possible cumulative impact of these factors and comorbidities given the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence.