Primary outcome Sample Clauses

Primary outcome. As previously discussed there is much anecdotal evidence as well evidence from earlier studies in this MD (Res) to suggest that people with ID (and their relatives and carers) often do not know how to access mental health care at all (or at least in a timely manner) in a crisis. Furthermore, when they do access emergency care there can often be important problems in the assessment and management process which are essentially caused by the increased difficulties of communication for people with ID. They are relatively less able to articulate their distress and more likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted by others. These problems of communication may lead to a range of undesirable consequences including potentially increased distress and agitation and misdiagnosis and thus also to more inpatient admissions especially if the assessment process itself does not allay or reduce distress and agitation or paradoxically increases these or the staff do not accurately understand or diagnose the presentation. For these reasons, efficacy would be determined primarily by a measure of the primary (quantitative) outcome, which would be the difference in hospital inpatient admission days observed in the intervention group when carrying the modified crisis information. This would be a quantitative outcome.