One-third to half of people with intellectual disabilities suffer from chronic constipation (defined as two or fewer bowel movements weekly or taking regular laxatives three or more times weekly), a cause of significant morbidity and premature mortality. Research on risk factors associated with constipation is limited.

To enumerate risk factors associated with constipation in this population.

A questionnaire was developed on possible risk factors for constipation. The questionnaire was sent to carers of people with intellectual disabilities on the case-loads of four specialist intellectual disability services in England. Data analysis focused on descriptively summarising responses and comparing those reported with and without constipation.

Of the 181 people with intellectual disabilities whose carers returned the questionnaire, 42% reported chronic constipation. Constipation was significantly associated with more severe intellectual disability, dysphagia, cerebral palsy, poor mobility, polypharmacy including antipsychotics and antiseizure medication, and the need for greater toileting support. There were no associations with age or gender.

People with intellectual disabilities may be more vulnerable to chronic constipation if they are more severely intellectually disabled. The associations of constipation with dysphagia, cerebral palsy, poor mobility and the need for greater toileting support suggests people with intellectual disabilities with significant physical disabilities are more at risk. People with the above disabilities need closer monitoring of their bowel health. Reducing medication to the minimum necessary may reduce the risk of constipation and is a modifiable risk factor that it is important to monitor. By screening patients using the constipation questionnaire, individualised bowel care plans could be implemented.

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.

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.

The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in people with intellectual disability (ID) is around 14%, higher than the general population. However, CVD risk assessments are not consistently performed. Given the high risk of premature deaths in people with ID, it is important to identify preventable risk factors and follow evidence-based interventions. QRISK-3 is a validated risk-stratification tool, which calculates the 10-year risk of developing a heart attack or stroke (https://qrisk.org/three/index.php). There are no published studies on the use of QRISK-3 in people with ID. This project aimed to understand the use of QRISK-3 in an ID clinic and to quantify individual CVD risks to recommend appropriate management options.

A cross sectional study was performed on 143 patients open to an ID psychiatry clinic. Patients and carers were sent an accessible information leaflet on this study. Basic demographic data and information on psychiatric diagnoses were collected. Patients were grouped according to the presence of severe mental illness (SMI) defined as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychotic illnesses. QRISK-3 ≥ 10% was defined as elevated risk in accordance with NICE guidelines. Patients who had a high QRISK-3 score were advised to contact their GP.

Of 143 patients, 73 (51.0%) had a mild ID and the remaining had a moderate to severe ID. The mean age was 43.3 years, 53.1% were male. Overall, 28 (19.6%) participants had an elevated CVD risk, of whom 16 (57.1%) were not on statins, which is the recommended treatment. The mean QRISK-3 score was 6.31 (standard deviation [SD] 8.95), and the relative risk is 3.50 (SD 7.13). The proportion of QRISK-3 ≥ 10% and mean score were not significantly different in those with SMI, but those with SMI were more likely to be prescribed statins than those without (14 [31.1%] vs 10 [10.2%], p = 0.002). Statins were given to 24 (16.8%) participants, of whom 12 (50%) had elevated CVD risk. 89% had a blood pressure recording within the past 5 years, 87% had height and 88% had weight recorded. 73% had lipid serology results recorded.

Elevated CVD risk was common in this ID study population, and more than half with elevated QRISK-3 were not on the medical treatment recommended by national guidelines. QRISK-3 could feasibly be implemented in the outpatient setting. Increased routine CVD risk assessment and management should be considered as another measure to reduce morbidity and mortality.

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.

A high proportion of adults with intellectual disabilities are prescribed off-licence antipsychotics in the absence of a psychiatric illness. The National Health Service in England launched an initiative in 2016, ‘Stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability [intellectual disability], autism or both’ (STOMP), to address this major public health concern.

To gain understanding from UK psychiatrists working with adults with intellectual disabilities on the successes and challenges of withdrawing antipsychotics for challenging behaviours.

An online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disability (estimated 225).

Half of the 88 respondents stated that they started withdrawing antipsychotics over 5 years ago and 52.3% stated that they are less likely to initiate an antipsychotic since the launch of STOMP. However, since then, 46.6% are prescribing other classes of psychotropic medication instead of antipsychotics for challenging behaviours, most frequently the antidepressants. Complete antipsychotic discontinuation in over 50% of patients treated with antipsychotics was achieved by only 4.5% of respondents (n = 4); 11.4% reported deterioration in challenging behaviours in over 50% of patients on withdrawal and the same proportion (11.4%) reported no deterioration. Only 32% of respondents made the diagnosis of psychiatric illness in all their patients themselves. Family and paid carers’ concern, lack of multi-agency and multidisciplinary input and unavailability of non-medical psychosocial intervention are key reported factors hampering the withdrawal attempt.

There is an urgent need to develop national guidelines to provide a framework for systematic psychotropic drug reviews and withdrawal where possible.