Search results

Since the development of antipsychotic drugs in the 1950s, a variety of studies and case reports have been published that suggest an association between exposure to typical antipsychotics and venous thromboembolisms (VTE). Therefore, when starting treatment with antipsychotics, especially low-potency typical antipsychotics and clozapine, health-care providers must account for the patient’s existing VTE risk factors.

In this case report, the authors describe the development of a pulmonary embolism associated with use of chlorpromazine in the treatment of an acute manic episode in a 51-year-old female patient with bipolar disorder type 1.

The patient was brought to the emergency room by the police on a legal hold for bizarre behaviors at a bus stop, which included incessantly yelling at bystanders. The patient was found to have disorganized thoughts, poor sleep, rapid speech, labile mood, distractibility, auditory hallucinations and grandiose delusions. During the course of her stay, the patient received extensive IM chlorpromazine for extreme agitation, in addition to chlorpromazine 200 mg IM Q8H, which was later decreased to chlorpromazine 100 mg chlorpromazine IM/PO Q8H. On day 4 of the treatment, the patient experienced difficulty breathing, hypoxia and tachycardia and was found to have bilateral expiratory wheezes. CT angiography showed sub-segmental pulmonary embolus and the patient was transferred to MICU service. The patient was then intubated and started on heparin by the medical team. Over the course of the next day, her respiratory distress resolved and the patient was extubated.

It is possible that chlorpromazine may indeed increase VTEs, and there are various physiological postulations regarding the mechanism of action. However, multiple confounding variables existed in the authors’ report, including venous stasis and the use of restraints, tobacco and valproic acid. Each of these variables has been shown to increase VTE occurrence. Further controlled studies are necessary to identify the true relationship between antipsychotics and VTEs.

The use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of forensic psychiatric patients constitutes an important part of the day‐to‐day practice of mental health professionals working in this important psychiatric sub‐speciality. It involves not just the prescription of specific drugs, but also the regular monitoring of their effects and possible side effects. Such monitoring involves the collaboration of professionals working in very different fields such as medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and pharmacy.

The purpose of this paper is to identify psychotropic medication being prescribed for people with intellectual disability “as and when required” (PRN); the indications, frequency of use, rate of poly-pharmacy and contribution of PRN medication towards this. The paper also aimed to identify individual and environmental factors associated with PRN medication prescribing.

Data were collected from nursing and medical records for the 119 service users in the acute assessment and treatment unit and NHS residential care settings managed by specialist intellectual disability services covering Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland over a month period. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios for predictor variables.

In total, 72 per cent of the service users were prescribed and 25 per cent were administered PRN medication over the study period. The most common indications for PRN prescribing were aggression and agitation. Lorazepam and chlorpromazine were the most frequently prescribed PRN medications. The rate of poly-pharmacy was 41 and 38 per cent of this was attributable to PRN medication. Male gender and history of challenging behaviour were found to be significant factors associated with PRN medication prescribing.

PRN medications are commonly prescribed in people with intellectual disabilities and contribute to poly-pharmacy. Whilst PRN medication continues to remain an effective therapeutic option in situations where environmental and behavioural approaches are proving insufficient, their use should always be in conjunction with effective review mechanisms.

The STOMP programme – stopping the over-medication of people with an intellectual disability, autism or both is a three-year programme supported by NHS England. Concern about the overuse of antipsychotic drugs has been a constant theme since the 1970s. However, despite a multitude of guidelines the practice continues. The report into the events at Winterbourne View not only raised concerns about the overuse of antipsychotic drugs but of antidepressants. Part 1 presented the historical background to the use of psychotropic drugs for people with an intellectual disability, autism or both. The purpose of this paper (Part 2) is to present the approach adopted to reduce over-medication (the “Call to Action”) and the progress so far at the half way stage.

The “Call to Action” methodology is described in a Manchester University report – mobilising and organising for large-scale change in healthcare “The Right Prescription: A Call to Action on the use of antipsychotic drugs for people with dementia”. Their research suggested that a social mobilising and organising approach to change operates could provide a mechanism for bringing about change where other approaches had failed.

The adoption of the “Call to Action” methodology has resulted in widespread acknowledgement across intellectual disability practice that overuse of psychotropic medication and poor review was resulting in over-medication. Many individual local programmes are underway (some are described in this paper) however to what extent the overall use of psychotropic drugs has changed is yet to be evaluated.

STOMP is part of an English national agenda – transforming care. The government and leading organisations across the health and care system are committed to transforming care for people with intellectual disabilities autism or both who have a mental illness or whose behaviour challenges services. This paper describes a new approach to stopping the over-medication of people with an intellectual disability, autism or both.

Medication may be used to treat two broad types of mental health problem: psychiatric disorders (such as depression, schizophrenia or obsessive‐compulsive disorder) and challenging behaviours (such as self‐injury, impulsive aggression or inappropriate sexual behaviour). The effectiveness of medication in the treatment of psychiatric disorder is well established for the non‐learning‐disabled population. In clinical practice, medication seems to be broadly as effective for people with learning disabilities. The effectiveness of medication in the treatment of challenging behaviours is less well established, although evidence for effectiveness is accumulating for some types of problem behaviour. When treating behavioural problems, medication is often used in combination with other management strategies. Knowledge of side effects is important, because people who have difficulty communicating may not be able to Report problems before they become severe. When using medication, it is important to try to achieve the best benefit: risk ratio, taking into account the person's other health problems and disabilities. It may be necessary to measure treatment effects, using standardised assessments or individual measures of target symptoms or behaviours.

Prison settings have limited resources, and it is of particular interest to analyze which antipsychotics are commonly prescribed in these conditions and to determine the prevalence of the adverse effects.

A cross-sectional, epidemiological survey was used to measure the prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing among adult prisoners in Sremska Mitrovica Prison in 2020.

The prevalence of antipsychotic use was 7.58%. The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic was clozapine (45.36%), but also olanzapine, haloperidol and risperidone were prescribed. The incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects was nonexistent and the metabolic parameters did not differ between participants using metabolic syndrome–inducing antipsychotics and those who were prescribed metabolically inert medications. The prescribed doses were lower compared with the recommended.

This research includes certain points that should be cautiously considered. First, the data were cross-sectional and the findings did not provide causal interpretations. Second, the data are from a single penitentiary institution, albeit the largest in the country; however, that may affect the generalizability of the findings. Third, because the included subjects were not hospitalized, some laboratory analyses were not available, according to the local regulations, and thus the prevalence of metabolic syndrome could not be precisely determined.

The prevalence of the antipsychotic use in prison environment is significantly higher than in general population. The most frequently prescribed antipsychotics are clozapine and olanzapine. The prevalence of adverse effects is rare, however, that is possibly due to low doses of the prescribed antipsychotics. The list of therapeutic options available to the incarcerated persons in this facility is also limited. The list of available antipsychotics does not include some atypical antipsychotics with more favorable safety and tolerability profile, such as aripiprazole or cariprazine. Long-acting antipsychotic injectables were also not available to these patients. Laboratory analyses are not regularly conducted and do not include some essential parameters such as lipid status or differential blood count. Low-dose antipsychotics for behavioral symptoms appears to be well tolerated under prison conditions where adherence is assured. It is effective during the prison stay but long-term effects, especially after release from prison, had not been studied.

This paper advocates for better quality of health care in this correctional facility: more therapeutic options and better laboratory monitoring. The authors justify the use of clozapine in this settings due its benefits in reducing violence and aggression; however, further research would be necessary to clarify does the use of clozapine in incarcerated persons cause behavioral improvements that could result in shorter incarcerations, less recidivism and better quality of life.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first insight of the antipsychotic prescribing practice in Serbia. There is very limited data on prisoners’ health care, especially mental health care, in Balkan countries. The antipsychotic prescribing pattern in this sample is characterized with higher than expected clozapine use, but without expected adverse effects.

There has been increasing concern about inappropriate or excessive medication of people with learning disabilities. Audits of prescribing practice may guide clinicians towards a more rational use of psychotropic drugs. Most previous studies have come from North America or Europe. This paper reports on a survey of prescribing patterns in an institution that cares for adults with severe to profound learning disabilities in Hong Kong. The survey found that 27% of the 294 hospital patients were receiving psychotropic drugs, but this rate was significantly higher (90%) in the ward for people with challenging behaviours. Most patients (67%) received a single psychotropic drug, 26% received two and 7%, three. Around half the patients (151) had epilepsy, of whom 90% received anticonvulsants. Of these, 52% received a single anticonvulsant, 37% received two and 11% received three or more. Dosages were generally within the recommended ranges. This survey revealed several good aspects of prescribing practice at Siu Lam Hospital, but also areas that need improvement. The latter include a drug‐reduction programme for the people with challenging behaviours, trials of drug‐free periods for seizure‐free patients receiving anticonvulsants and replacement of phenytoin and phenobarbitone with safer alternatives.

The purpose of this chapter is to apply structural functional theory and the concept of “unbundling” to an analysis of the deinstitutionalization and community mental health efforts that have shaped the current mental health services environment.

We examine the original goals of the institutional movement, the arguments supporting it, and the functions of the institutions that were created. We then examine the criticisms of that approach and the success of the subsequent deinstitutionalization process, which attempted to undo this process by recreating the hospitals’ functions in community settings. Finally, we address the question of whether the critical functions of psychiatric institutions have indeed been adequately recreated.

Our overview of outcomes from this process suggests that the unbundling of state hospital functions did not yield an adequate system of care and support, and that the functions of state hospitals, including social control and incapacitation with respect to public displays of deviance were not sufficiently recreated in the community-based settings.

The arguments for the construction of state hospitals, the critiques of those settings, and the current criticism of efforts to replace their functions are eerily similar. Actors involved in the design of mental health services should take into account the functions of existing services and the gaps between them. Consideration of the history of efforts at functional change might also serve this process well.

Despite the increasing evidence about the inappropriate use of medications by older people, there is very little published evidence about the control and monitoring of neuroleptic drugs used in nursing homes. As others have indicated, this is all the more worrying when set in the context of the paucity of research on nursing home care and the trend to replace registered nurses with untrained care assistants. In the United States, legislation in the form of the Nursing Home Reform Act (OBRA 1987) was introduced, in part, to regulate the prescribing and administration of neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs. No such legislation exists in Canada or the United Kingdom. In the case of the latter jurisdiction, the recent Royal Commission on Long‐Term Care for older people (The Stationery Office, 1999) has recommended a national care commission to monitor care, and set assessment and quality benchmarks. In Canada this debate has not even begun, and the purpose of this paper is not to ignite controversy, but to raise questions about the use of these drugs with nursing home residents. Voluntary guidelines and education of physicians, nurses and care attendants would be infinitely better than legislation. In the meantime, we need research to address the following questions: For what reasons should these drugs be given to older people? Are these drugs being used appropriately? Is the risk of side‐effects too great with these drugs? Are the numbers and type of staff employed in nursing homes adequate/qualified to detect and report side‐effects? How well do these drugs manage the behaviours they are given to control? Are they being used as chemical restraints or to make the older person compliant? Are the so‐called ‘atypical’ neuroleptic drugs any better? What we offer in this article is background information that might encourage others to not only review their practice but also to address these questions.

This article discusses the role that gardening, horticulture and farming can play in promoting mental well‐being and in supporting the recovery of individuals with mental health problems.