Background Falls are common among people with intellectual disabilities. Many falls happen within the home. Our scoping review aimed to identify evidence for falls‐risk factors and falls‐prevention interventions for this population. Method We conducted a multi‐database search to identify any type of published study that explored falls‐risk factors or falls‐prevention interventions for people with intellectual disabilities. Following a process of (i) title & abstract and (ii) full‐text screening, data was extracted from the included studies and described narratively. Results Forty‐one studies were included. Risks are multifactorial. There was limited evidence of medical, behavioural/psychological, or environmental interventions to address modifiable risk factors, and no evidence of the interventions' cost‐effectiveness. Conclusions Clinically and cost effective, acceptable and accessible falls‐prevention pathways should be available for people with intellectual disabilities who are at risk of falls from an earlier age than the general population.

Background: Outcome measures need to be used by allied health professionals (AHPs) to measure clinical effectiveness, as well as communicate with patients and commissioners. Methods: A survey of current use of outcome measures was conducted across acute and community therapies departments (dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech & language therapy services) within University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT). Results: There was a 17% response rate with 51 respondents completing the survey. 25% of respondents used outcome measures with every patient, 24% at least once per day, 22% at least once per week, and 29% rarely or never. Most therapists felt confident that they are able to score outcome measures accurately (mode rating for confidence: 8/10). However, 1 in 5 therapists reported low (≤5/10) confidence in using outcome measures. There was wide variation in the outcome measures used by respondents. The most commonly used outcome measures were the Berg Balance Scale (n=13) and the Therapies Outcome Measure (TOMS) – Multifactorial Conditions (n= 9). However there were 35 outcome measure tools cited as being used by only 1 respondent each. Themes from comments included: ‘considering change’ and barriers to outcome measure use as ‘COVID-19 impact’, ‘staffing pressures’ or ‘brief-intervention services’. Conclusion: Whilst a wide variety of outcome measures are used by therapy staff at UHMBT, they are not used with sufficient frequency to allow routine monitoring of clinical effectiveness. Being able to measure the impact of different models of service delivery would be particularly beneficial where service changes are implemented rapidly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Next steps could draw on evidence from previous studies by identifying suitable outcome measures (including those suitable for use in remote consultations), and developing a training programme to encourage the routine use of outcome measures in practice.

Commentary on: Pope J, Truesdale M, Brown M. Risk factors for falls among adults with intellectual disabilities: A narrative review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2021; 34: 274–285. 10.1111/jar.12805 Falls are a serious and common problem for people with intellectual disabilities (ID). Whilst there is available evidence on falls risk factors for the general population, there is a lack of awareness and understanding of the contributing risk factors for this population. This commentary critically appraises a recent narrative review which sought to identify the risk factors for falls among people with ID. Clinical practice implications: Community nurses may identify people with ID at risk of falls, and work alongside other healthcare professionals and carers to provide tailored multidisciplinary falls-prevention interventions for individuals with ID living in the community.