Search results

A quantitative observational study was conducted. The purpose of this study is to examine the continuing adherence to the stopping over-medication of people with intellectual disability and/or autism guidelines for a cohort of outpatients seen in the outpatients’ clinics in the two teams who participated in this study to review the trend of psychotropic prescribing with a prescription indication along with the utilisation of non-pharmacological interventions.

Data was retrospectively collected over a period of one year for patients sampled conveniently in the outpatient’s clinic. The data was collected from two sites from psychiatric letters to the general practitioners (GPs), with the focus being psychotropic prescription indication and their adherence to British National Formulary limits, inclusion of a wider multi-disciplinary team or MDT (including nurses, psychologists and health support workers), use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale for assessing medication side effects and response to treatment.

Most of the patients had at least one review in the previous six months. Antipsychotics were the highest prescribed medications without an indication for their use (13.3%) followed by anxiolytics and other medications. CGI recording was suboptimal, with 26% of the patient population did not have medication side effects and effectiveness monitored through this method. In total, 41% of patients were open to community nurses followed by other disciplines.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is an original article following the pilot study completed by the authors.

This service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018).

This paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis.

Data showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery.

This evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.