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.

The aim of the project was to evaluate the short‐term treatment outcomes of patients treated in a medium secure service for people with intellectual disability. A total of 138 patients, 77 discharged and 61 current inpatients, treated over a six‐year period were included in the audit. Information on demographic and clinical variables was collected on a pre‐designed data collection tool and analysed using appropriate statistical methods. The median length of stay for the discharged group was 2.8 years. About 90% of this group were discharged to lower levels of security and about a third went directly to community placements. None of the clinical and forensic factors examined was significantly associated with length of stay for this group. There was a ‘difficult to discharge long‐stay’ group which had more patients with criminal sections, restriction orders, history of abuse, fire setting, personality disorders and substance misuse. However, when regression analysis was done, most of these factors were not predictive of the length of stay. Clinical diagnosis or offending behaviour categories are poor predictors of length of hospital stay, and there is a need to identify empirically derived patient clusters using a variety of clinical and forensic variables. Common datasets and multi‐centre audits are needed to drive this.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact on both the physical and mental well-being of the global population. Relatively few studies have measured the impact of lockdown on utilisation of secondary mental health services in England. Aims To describe secondary mental health service utilisation pre-lockdown and during lockdown within Leicestershire, UK, and the numbers of serious incidents during this time frame. Method Data pertaining to mental health referral and hospital admissions to adult mental health, child and adolescent mental health, intellectual disability and mental health services for older people were collated retrospectively from electronic records for both 8 weeks pre-lockdown and the first 8 weeks of lockdown in England. Serious incidents during this time frame were also analysed. Results Significantly (P < 0.05) reduced referrals to a diverse range of mental health services were observed during lockdown, including child and adolescent, adult, older people and intellectual disability services. Although admissions remained relatively stable before and during lockdown for several services, admissions to both acute adult and mental health services for older people were significantly (P < 0.05) reduced during lockdown. Numbers of serious incidents in the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods were similar, with 23 incidents pre-lockdown, compared with 20 incidents in lockdown. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first UK-based study reporting patterns of use of mental health services immediately prior to and during COVID-19 lockdown. Overall numbers of referrals and admissions reduced following commencement of COVID-19 lockdown. Potential reasons for these observations are discussed.

Abstract:Background: To describe the characteristics of those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) treated within a forensic intellectual disability hospital and to compare them with those without ASD.Method: Service evaluation of a cohort of 138 patients treated over a 6 year period.Results: Of the 138, 42 had an ASD. Personality disorders and harmful use or dependence on drugs were significantly lower in the ASD group. The ASD group was less likely to be subject to criminal sections or restriction orders. Self-harm was significantly higher in the ASD group. There were no differences in the length of stay and direction of care pathway.Conclusions: Although the ASD and non-ASD groups differ on clinical and forensic characteristics, their treatment outcomes appear similar. This suggests that the diagnostic category of ASD alone may be inadequate in predicting the treatment outcome. There is a case to identify distinct typologies within the ASD group. Method: Service evaluation of a cohort of 138 patients treated over a 6 year period. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesResults: Of the 138, 42 had an ASD. Personality disorders and harmful use or dependence on drugs were significantly lower in the ASD group. The ASD group was less likely to be subject to criminal sections or restriction orders. Self-harm was significantly higher in the ASD group. There were no differences in the length of stay and direction of care pathway. Conclusions:Although the ASD and non-ASD groups differ on clinical and forensic characteristics, their treatment outcomes appear similar. This suggests that the diagnostic category of ASD alone may be inadequate in predicting the treatment outcome. There is a case to identify distinct typologies within the ASD group.