Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:03:39.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychotropic prescribing practices in adults with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder in Richmond Neurodevelpmental Services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Anushka Dissanayake*
Affiliation:
Your Healthcare (Neurodevelopmental Services)
Nicholas Davey
Affiliation:
South West London St Georges Mental Health Trust
Rupal Patel
Affiliation:
Your Healthcare (Neurodevelopmental Services)
*
*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

Our aim was to evaluate psychotropic prescribing practices in adults with intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) across the Richmond Neurodevelopmental Service (NDS).

Stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both with psychotropics (STOMP) aims to reduce the potential harm of inappropriate use of psychotropic medications. We aimed to evaluate our prescribing practices in keeping with STOMP and the NICE guidelines.

Method

We collected information from our clinical records on patients that met the inclusion criteria (≥18 years + diagnosis of ID and autism) from October-November 2019. We gathered the following: age, sex, severity of ID, psychiatric diagnoses, psychotropic medication, presence of challenging behaviours, involvement of positive behaviour support (PBS) and documentation of a PBS plan.

Result

32 patients met our criteria (3:1 Male-Female ratio with an age range of 20-74 (Median 33 years old)). All 32 patients showed evidence of challenging behaviours. In the cohort, mild ID represented 18.8% (n = 6), moderate ID 40.6% (n = 13) and severe ID 40.6% (n = 13).

17 patients (53%) had a PBS plan in place. For those without a PBS plan (47%, n = 15), a referral to behavioural analysis had been considered/requested in 67% (n = 10).

31 patients were on psychotropic medication and 84% (n = 26) had an indication documented in the notes although every patient had had a medication review in the last 6 months. 67.7% (n = 21) of the prescriptions were for challenging behaviours.

The average number of medications prescribed was 2 (median 2, mean 2.41) but this was reduced to 1 (median 1, mean 1.76) when additional psychiatric diagnoses and epilepsy were excluded.

Conclusion

Prescriptions are regularly reviewed in keeping with STOMP guidance but there is more scope for utilising behaviour analysis input as well as the need to improve documentation of the rationale for psychotropic medications.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.