Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:55:21.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Medication Initiation in Children Newly Diagnosed With ADHD, Measured Against NICE Guideline NG87

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Emma McWilliams*
Affiliation:
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
Eleni Markopoulou
Affiliation:
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

ADHD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, which is usually diagnosed in childhood. The aim of this audit is to assess practitioners' compliance with NICE guideline NG87 in relation to the initial assessment and medication choice in children with ADHD (age 5 and over), prior to the commencement of ADHD medication.

Methods

The sample was children aged 5 years and over who have been diagnosed with ADHD and referred for medication initiation, in a Manchester CAMHS community team between May and October 2022. The audit tool used to collect the data included each of the standards and measured each individual patient's compliance. Information was collected from electronic patient records and paper notes.

Results

Sample size was 32 patients.

Standard One stated that 100% of patients, before starting medication, should have a full assessment, including: a review to confirm they meet the criteria for ADHD and need treatment, mental health and social circumstances including coexisting psychiatric/neurodevelopmental conditions, educational/employment circumstances, risk assessment for substance misuse and care needs. Overall compliance was 9%.

Standard 2 stated that all patients should have a physical health review including medical history, medication, height, weight and physical observations and, a cardiovascular assessment. Overall compliance was 0%.

Standard 3 stated that 100% of patients who met specified criteria should be referred for a cardiology assessment prior to starting medication. Overall compliance was 28%.

Standard 4 stated that 100% of patients who met criteria for referral to cardiology or had a co-existing condition treated with a medicine that may pose cardiac risk should have an ECG completed. Overall compliance was 75%

Standard 5 stated that 100% of patients who have a blood pressure consistently above the 95th centile for age and height should be referred to paediatric hypertension specialist. Overall compliance was 9%.

Standard 6 stated that 100% of patients should be offered methylphenidate as first line treatment for ADHD or an alternative if they cannot tolerate stimulants. Overall compliance was 100%

Conclusion

Three major areas of improvement were identified. Cardiovascular risk assessments are not fully compliant due to lack of cardiac examination which could affect rates of cardiology referral as referral criteria include a murmur on examination.

Although 100% of patient had their height, weight and physical observations recorded, a significant proportion did not have these plotted on centile charts as recommended.

A minority of patients had a full biopsychosocial assessment, with a major deficit in risk assessment for substance misuse.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.