Search

Purpose: A quantitative observational study was conducted. The purpose of this study is to examine the continuing adherence to the stopping over-medication of people with intellectual disability and/or autism guidelines for a cohort of outpatients seen in the outpatients' clinics in the two teams who participated in this study to review the trend of psychotropic prescribing with a prescription indication along with the utilisation of non-pharmacological interventions. Design/methodology/approach: Data was retrospectively collected over a period of one year for patients sampled conveniently in the outpatient's clinic. The data was collected from two sites from psychiatric letters to the general practitioners (GPs), with the focus being psychotropic prescription indication and their adherence to British National Formulary limits, inclusion of a wider multi-disciplinary team or MDT (including nurses, psychologists and health support workers), use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale for assessing medication side effects and response to treatment. Findings: Most of the patients had at least one review in the previous six months. Antipsychotics were the highest prescribed medications without an indication for their use (13.3%) followed by anxiolytics and other medications. CGI recording was suboptimal, with 26% of the patient population did not have medication side effects and effectiveness monitored through this method. In total, 41% of patients were open to community nurses followed by other disciplines. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is an original article following the pilot study completed by the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to understand whether psychotropic prescribing practices for people with intellectual disabilities are in keeping with best practice guidelines. Design/methodology/approach: This service evaluation project was a retrospective analysis of routinely collected data from the care records of all 36 people with intellectual disability discharged from an intellectual disability assessment and treatment unit during the first five years of the Stop Over medicating People with Intellectual Disabilities and/or autistic people (STOMP) initiative. Data were gathered at four time points (pre-admission, discharge, 6- and 12-month follow-up) before being analysed to understand whether psychotropic prescribing differed among people with different clinical characteristics/traits/diagnoses. Changes over time were also explored to ascertain whether and how prescribing altered from admission to discharge, and over the subsequent year of community living. Findings: Most people with intellectual disabilities left the assessment and treatment unit on fewer regular psychotropic medications and at lower doses than at admission. These optimised regimes were still apparent 12 months post-discharge, suggesting effective discharge planning and community care packages. Inpatients with severe intellectual disabilities generally received more anxiolytics and hypnotics, at higher doses. Autistic people tended to receive more psychotropics in total and at higher cumulative doses, a pattern that persisted post discharge. A third of the sample were admitted on regular anti-psychotic medications despite having no corresponding psychotic diagnosis, a proportion that remained relatively stable through discharge and into the community. Originality/value: This study highlights subsets of the intellectual disability population at particular risk of receiving high doses of psychotropics and a feasible template for providers intending to undertake STOMP-focused evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overprescribing of off‐licence psychotropic medications, particularly antipsychotics, for challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities without a psychiatric disorder is a significant public health concern. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service England launched an initiative in 2016, 'STopping Over‐Medication of People with learning disabilities, autism or both (STOMP)', to address this concern. STOMP is supposed to encourage psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to rationalise psychotropic medication use in people with intellectual disabilities. The current study aims to gather UK psychiatrists' views and experience of implementing the STOMP initiative. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disabilities (estimated 225). Two open‐ended questions allowed participants to write comments in response to these questions in the free text boxes. One question asked about the challenges psychiatrists faced locally to implement STOMP, and the other asked for examples of successes and positive experiences from the process. The free text data were analysed using a qualitative method with the help of the NVivo 12 plus software. Results: Eighty‐eight (estimated 39%) psychiatrists returned the completed questionnaire. The qualitative analysis of free‐text data has shown variation within services in the experience and views of the psychiatrists. In areas with good support for STOMP implementation provided through adequate resources, psychiatrists reported satisfaction in the process with successful antipsychotic rationalisation, better local multi‐disciplinary and multi‐agency working, and increased awareness of STOMP issues among the stakeholders such as people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers and multidisciplinary teams, and improved quality of life caused by reduced medication‐related adverse events in people with intellectual disabilities. However, where resource utilisation is not optimum, psychiatrists seemed dissatisfied with the process with little success in medication rationalisation. Conclusions: Whereas some psychiatrists are successful and enthusiastic about rationalising antipsychotics, others still face barriers and challenges. Much work is needed to achieve a uniformly positive outcome throughout the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to examine whether there were differences in the provision of non-pharmacological interventions based on the level of intellectual disability and the presence or absence of autism. Mental health conditions are often underdiagnosed in adults with intellectual disability and do not always receive psychological interventions as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent guidelines. To realise the national UK programme's aim of stopping the overuse of medications in people with intellectual disability, it is important that these individuals have access to appropriate non-pharmacological interventions. The authors examined the relationship between an individual's level of intellectual disability and the presence or absence of autism with access to relevant non-pharmacological interventions from specialist community intellectual disability services. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional study of adults accessing four specialist intellectual disability services in North West England in 2019. Findings: There was a high prevalence of mental health comorbidity, even higher for autistic adults. However, a relatively small percentage of the study population was receiving psychological interventions. The most frequent non-pharmacological intervention was a positive behaviour support plan, irrespective of comorbid mental illnesses. Research limitations/implications: Not having access to psychological interventions for the treatment of mental illness could result in poor health outcomes and increasing health inequalities. The study highlights the need for developing psychological interventions, particularly for those with moderate to severe intellectual disability and for those with associated autism. Originality/value: This large sample study examined the relationship between intellectual disability level and the presence of autism with accessing psychological interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundA 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.AimsTo gain understanding from UK psychiatrists working with adults with intellectual disabilities on the successes and challenges of withdrawing antipsychotics for challenging behaviours.MethodAn online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disability (estimated 225).ResultsHalf 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.ConclusionsThere is an urgent need to develop national guidelines to provide a framework for systematic psychotropic drug reviews and withdrawal where possible.