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.

People with ID from two ethnic groups were able to successfully complete a Delphi consultation regarding their experiences of mental health services. Broad consensus on positive experiences of services was reached in the White group but not for the Black participants.

Aims and methodWe assessed 92% (117/127) of the patients in our community mental health learning disability team using the Mental Health Clustering Tool (MHCT) to establish whether their needs could be captured sufficiently well to enable assignment to a care cluster for payment by results in mental health. We explored the characteristics of those assigned to Cluster 0 to identify how they differed from those who could be assigned to Clusters 1-21.ResultsAs expected, nearly half of the case-load (48%) could not be assigned to any cluster except Cluster 0, the variance cluster, which is used when the needs of patients cannot be captured by the current 21 care clusters but a service is, or will be, provided.Clinical implicationsThe MHCT in its current form does not adequately capture the needs of people with more severe intellectual disability. An integrated mental health and learning disability clustering tool is in development. This is expected to include new rating scales and new clusters, however until the development is completed and validated it will not be possible to implement payment by results in mental health in learning disability services.

SummaryPayment by results (PbR) is a payment platform for healthcare services. Introduced to acute physical healthcare services in England in 2003–2004, the system has continued to expand and is currently being implemented in acute mental health services. Owing to the variations and complexities of the patients who access specialist psychiatric services, existing clusters do not always accurately capture their needs. The development of PbR tools specific to psychiatric subspecialties is ongoing, but might not be available in the short term. The funding of acute mental health services through PbR might have funding implications for specialist services such as psychiatry of intellectual disability.

No abstract