A1-day census, involving 3576 psychiatric in-patients prescribed antipsychotic medication, was conducted as a prelude to a multi-centre audit. The aim was to explore the extent to which a number of patient variables explain antipsychotic polypharmacy and the use of high doses of these drugs.

Prescriptions of more than one type of antipsychotic drug were made for 50.5% of patients. Patient factors that influenced the probability of polypharmacy were: younger age, being male, detained under the Mental Health Act and on a rehabilitation or forensic ward, and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The effect of ethnicity was not significant. Polypharmacy was the most powerful factor influencing the probability of being prescribed a high dose. Identified patient variables accounted for only 18% of the variance in dose prescribed.

The patient and clinician factors that account for the unexplained variance need to be identified.

Forty-seven UK mental health services participated in a 1-day audit of prescribing of antipsychotic drugs. Audit standards were derived from national guidelines and consensus statements.

Of the 3132 patients, 20% were prescribed a total dose of antipsychotic medication above that recommended by the British National Formulary. The majority of case notes failed to record an indication for high-dose prescribing or that the patient had been informed; only 8% had undergone an electrocardiogram. Forty-eight per cent of patients were prescribed more than one antipsychotic drug.

Antipsychotic prescribing for in-patients often runs counter to existing guideline recommendations. It is likely that many patients who are prescribed high doses or polypharmacy are unaware that their prescription is out of line with guideline recommendations and is inadequately monitored.

A 1-day census provided an opportunity to examine the variation between 44 mental health services in the frequency of prescribing high doses and polypharmacy of antipsychotic drugs to in-patients on acute psychiatric wards.

The proportion of patients prescribed a high dose ranged 0–50% and simultaneous use of more than one antipsychotic drug ranged 12–71%. A number of case-mix variables explained 26% and 40%, respectively, of the variance between services on these two indicators of prescribing practice.

Services with high rates of prescription of high dose or polypharmacy might consider a review of clinical practice and of service-level factors that might affect prescribing.

We aimed to survey clinicians' attitudes on using evidence-based guidelines. A postal questionnaire based on a previous survey of general practitioners was sent to 105 psychiatrists working within Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust.

There was a 91% response rate. Respondents were generally in favour of clinical guidelines, with scores indicating a positive attitude to guidelines in 13 of the 18 statements. The majority felt that guidelines were effective in improving patient care, could be used flexibly to suit individual patients and did not impinge on their clinical judgement.

Psychiatrists welcomed the increasing use of guidelines. Further research is needed to determine whether this will translate into actual use and improved outcomes for patients.

To analyse violent and threatening behaviour occurring within an in-patient service. We surveyed recorded incidents over a 6-month period.

Ninety-six incidents were recorded. The patients involved were assessed as being aware of their actions. Police were contacted in five cases. No charges were pressed.

We believe that violence and threatening behaviours are excessively tolerated in learning disability units. Reasons for this include a staff culture of accepting offending behaviour and an unwillingness or inability to involve the police.