Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:27:15.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Retrospective Analysis of a Single Centre Experience of the Pharmacological Management of Patients With Intellectual Disability & Challenging Behaviour Across Three Audit Cycles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Nusra Khodabux*
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Mohamed Hamid
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Rebecca Perry
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Bernadette Cawley-Nash
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Ioanna Savvopoulou
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Rohit Gumber
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Mary Barrett
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, 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

To investigate adherence to NICE and STOMP guidelines for the pharmacological management of patients with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behaviour (CB) in a large acute mental health trust over three audit cycles

Methods

The electronic records of a purposive sample of patients with ID and CB under the care of the ID Team at a large acute mental health trust were retrospectively reviewed over three audit cycles (conducted in 2013, 2014 and 2021).

Results

The sample sizes were 31 (2013), 17 (2014) and 35 (2021). Over the three cycles, most patients had moderate (35%, 47%, 49%) or severe ID (42%, 35%, 31%). Common co-diagnoses included autistic spectrum disorder (45%, 47%, 69%), mood disorders (23%,18%,17%) and epilepsy (16%, 24%,31%).

Target behaviours for intervention were aggression (42%, 27%, 49%), agitation (10%, 40%, 40%) and self-injurious behaviour (28%, 20% and 20%).

Medications used for CB were antipsychotics (61%, 24%, 62%), benzodiazepines (20%, 29%, 42%), antidepressants (13%, 35%, 42%) and mood stabilizers (6%, 12%, 9%)

The number of patients on multiple medications to manage CB declined over the years, with an increasing number receiving singular drug therapy (19%, 35%, 34%).

Over the three audited years, there were improvements in risk assessment (68%, 94%, 100%), descriptions of the nature of targeted behaviours (74%, 100%, 100%), metabolic monitoring (0%, 0%, 95%), documentation of successful and unsuccessful interventions (48%, 65%, 86%).

Adherence to certain standards however declined over time or remained difficult to achieve: complete evaluation of mental (87%, 94%, 60%) and physical health (61%, 88%, 60%), documentation of consent (19%, 76%, 46%), documentation of discussions regarding potential side effects (32%, 47%, 50%) and 6 weeks’ review of medications’ efficacy (52%, 65%, 50%). A positive behaviour support care plan was available in 75% of cases in 2021 and had not been audited in previous cycles.

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis highlights a reduction in the use of polypharmacy to manage CB in patients with ID over time. Adherence to standards remains patchy across the years with improvements in risk assessments and metabolic monitoring. Standards necessitating outpatient intervention such as review of medication efficacy, evaluation of mental and physical well-being were hard to achieve, in part explained by service changes and pressures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Future improvements may require increased pharmacy-led reviews.

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.