Children with intellectual disability are often prescribed psychotropic medication to manage behaviours that challenge. Unfortunately, many receive medication with potentially serious long-term side-effects that has been prescribed inappropriately or for longer than is necessary. NHS England launched STOMP (stopping the over-medication of people with intellectual disability, autism or both with psychotropic medicines) in 2016 to reduce the inappropriate prescribing in adults. This was broadened to include children in 2018 by the addition of STAMP (supporting treatment and appropriate medication in paediatrics). In this article we review the rationale for STOMP–STAMP, highlight the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ position statement on STOMP–STAMP and give clinical advice for psychiatrists who treat children with intellectual disability, autism and/or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Importantly, it is essential to consider that ADHD may have been missed and that by diagnosing and treating it, the need for inappropriate antipsychotic medication may be reduced.

This refreshment summarises some of the ways in which ‘insight’ has been understood in psychiatric practice and offers some critical thoughts about the notion.

Depression has a large socioeconomic burden, affecting an estimated 280 million people worldwide. Up to 55% remain symptomatic following pharmacological and psychological treatment and may be classified as having treatment-resistant depression. This commentary assesses two treatment options for this group – electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and a novel approach, magnetic seizure therapy (MST) – with reference to a Cochrane Review comparing the two. The Cochrane analysis showed no clear benefit for MST, but the evidence is currently insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

Distinguishing the symptoms of antidepressant withdrawal from those of relapse is a complex issue that has an impact on a significant number of clinicians and patients. This commentary expands on several important points made by Horowitz & Taylor in their examination of this critically under-researched area and illustrates the relationships between symptoms, and how their onset may provide insights into their aetiology.

We examine Foreman's assertion that assessing, addressing and utilising a patient's faith is warranted. After a brief background, we examine when faith-integrated therapy is indicated, the need for training, an example of such a therapy, and what to do when the faith of the therapist conflicts with that of the patient. Also emphasised is the need for a clear definition of terms.

Female drug-using offenders are a large but under-researched and vulnerable population with specific needs. Only a handful of randomised controlled trials of interventions for this population are of sufficient quality to shed light on what might work to reduce their criminal activity and drug use, and interpretation of the results of most of these trials is limited by an ‘unclear’ risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. Better-quality research is needed to inform practitioners and policy makers. In the meantime, this month's Cochrane Corner review provides cautious support for the use of some psychosocial treatments, particularly if delivered in a gender-responsive way addressing issues of abuse and victimisation, in the expectation that re-imprisonment can be prevented, even if there is no proven effect on re-arrest rates and only uncertain effects on substance use.

There is considerable work being carried out in neuroscientific laboratories to delineate the mechanisms underlying single-gene disorders, particularly those related to intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. Many clinicians will have little if any direct experience of this type of work and so find the procedures and terminology difficult to understand. This article describes some of the laboratory techniques used and their increasing relevance to clinical practice. It is pitched for clinicians with little or no laboratory science background.

Approximately 25% of people will be affected by a mental disorder at some stage in their life. Despite the prevalence and negative impacts of mental disorders, many people are not diagnosed or do not receive adequate treatment. Therefore primary healthcare has been identified as essential to improving the delivery of mental healthcare. Consultation liaison is a model of mental healthcare where the primary care provider maintains the central role in the delivery of mental healthcare, with a mental health specialist providing consultative support. Consultation liaison has the potential to enhance the delivery of mental healthcare in the primary care setting and, in turn, improve outcomes for people with a mental disorder.

Qualitative research methods, defined as the collection and analysis of non-numerical data to understand concepts and experiences, are often used to inform mental health practice and policies. When utilising qualitative research methods, it is important that the researcher uses an explicit theoretical framework to guide the study. A theoretical framework informs how researchers engage with a topic or problem, report on their work with participants, describe key concepts and address assumptions within the research questions and procedures. In this article, we describe the basic concepts underpinning three of the most commonly used frameworks in mental health research: positivism, interpretivism and critical realism. We also describe how these theoretical frameworks may guide the qualitative process, including the theoretical and methodological approaches chosen and the ways in which these theoretical frameworks can be applied in practice. To enhance understanding of these frameworks, we include examples of how such frameworks can be used in qualitative mental health research.

Working with people who are experiencing mental health difficulties brings many challenges about how best to progress towards shared goals. The cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) approach can provide a structure and framework for effective treatment. It aims to help people identify goals and work towards them. We describe a practical approach that provides a structure for step-by-step planning, engaging the patient and promoting planned change.

Akathisia is a common and distressing side-effect of antipsychotic medication. The treatment of this condition is difficult and options are limited. This review of the literature was performed to develop an evidence-based algorithm for the management of antipsychotic-induced akathisia. There is limited high-level evidence to support the use of anticholinergics. Centrally acting β-adrenergic antagonists are potential treatments, although their use is limited by troublesome side-effects. Long-acting benzodiazepines and mirtazapine are potential well-tolerated treatments for the acute management of akathisia.

Although in agreement with their conclusions about the importance of clinical judgement, this commentary criticises the way that Downie & Macnaughton defend it in their article. I argue that their defence is both overly limited in its account of the role of judgement and that it employs unnecessarily contentious arguments. I outline the ineliminable role that judgement plays in determining which general diagnostic concepts fit individual patients given their individuality and specificity.

There has been a surge in interest in the boundaries of psychiatry, both as a specialty in its own right and as a branch of medicine separate from neurology. Our article expands on this, giving examples of how recent developments in neuroimmunology can be beneficial for psychiatry, using multiple sclerosis (MS) as an example. We also provide a summary of literature on novel research in the treatment of depression using anti-inflammatory agents. Finally, we suggest approaches to the identification and management of major depressive disorder in patients with MS or other physical illnesses, and how this translates to general psychiatric practice.

Patricia Casey's papers (2003a, b, this issue) cover the situation regarding expert witnesses in England and Wales and in Ireland. The situation in Scotland is outlined below.