The current COVID‐19 pandemic is a pressing world crisis and people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are vulnerable due to disparity in healthcare provision and physical and mental health multimorbidity. While most people will develop mild symptoms upon contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), some will develop serious complications. The aim of this study is to present guidelines for the care and treatment of people with IDs during the COVID‐19 pandemic for both community teams providing care to people with IDs and inpatient psychiatric settings. The guidelines cover specific issues associated with hospital passports, individual COVID‐19 care plans, the important role of families and carers, capacity to make decisions, issues associated with social distancing, ceiling of care/treatment escalation plans, mental health and challenging behavior, and caring for someone suspected of contracting or who has contracted SARS‐CoV‐2 within community or inpatient psychiatric settings. We have proposed that the included conditions recommended by Public Health England to categorize someone as high risk of severe illness due to COVID‐19 should also include mental health and challenging behavior. There are specific issues associated with providing care to people with IDs and appropriate action must be taken by care providers to ensure that disparity of healthcare is addressed during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We recognize that our guidance is focused upon healthcare delivery in England and invite others to augment our guidance for use in other jurisdictions.

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

A quarter of people with Intellectual Disability (ID) in the UK have epilepsy compared to 0.6% in the general population and die much younger. Epilepsy is associated with two-fifths of all deaths with related polypharmacy and multi-morbidity. Epilepsy research on this population has been poor. This study describes real-world clinical and risk characteristics of a large cohort across England and Wales. Methods:A retrospective multi-centre cohort study was conducted. Information on seizure characteristics, ID severity, relevant co-morbidities, psychotropic and antiseizure drugs (ASDs), SUDEP and other risk factors was collected across a year. Results:Of 904 adults across 10 centres (male:female,1•5:1), 320 (35%) had mild ID and 584 (65%) moderate-profound (M/P) ID. The mean age was 39.9 years (SD 15.0). Seizures were more frequent in M/P ID (p <0•001). Over 50% had physical health co-morbidities, more in mild ID (p<0•01). A third had psychiatric co-morbidity and a fifth had an underlying genetic disorder. Autism Spectrum Disorder was seen in over a third (37%). Participants were on median two ASDs and overall, five medications. Over quarter were on anti-psychotics. Over 90% had an epilepsy review in the past year but 25% did not have an epilepsy care plan, particularly those with mild ID (p<0•001). Only 61% had a documented discussion of SUDEP, again less likely with mild ID or their care stakeholders (p<0•001). Conclusions:Significant levels of multi-morbidity, polypharmacy and a lack of systemised approach to treatment and risk exist. Addressing these concerns is essential to reduce premature mortality.

competencies across specialties for working in niche super-specialised areas. Any such provision needs to be structured to protect the value of the CCT and should have the quality assurance processes of pre-CCT training posts. Post-CCT training should not dilute the increasing importance of continuing professional development within the consultant grade. ConclusionIt is clear that there are specialty combinations that remain crucial to service provision and appropriate training must therefore exist to ensure that there are specialists in these areas. However, traditional dual training appears to be under threat and adaptations need to be made to the new structure of postgraduate training to allow trainees to develop the necessary competencies across specialties. The rhetoric surrounding MMC promised greater flexibility of training and it is of paramount importance that this is developed in order for trainees to achieve the broad and diverse range of competencies that are required by these developing services. This will allow us to meet the needs of our patients and deliver the best possible care.

Background 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. Aims We aimed to develop a screening tool to help identify people with intellectual disability and ADHD. Method 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.