Search results

The aim of this paper is to ascertain the attitudes and experiences of psychiatrists, nurse prescribers, and service users with regard to the prescription of antipsychotic medication, the route of administration, and the extent of service users' involvement.

A total of 26 psychiatrists and 12 nurses agreed to be interviewed in phase one of this study, concerning general aspects of prescribing. In phase two, 11 of the psychiatrists and five nurses from the first cohort took part in follow‐up interviews that focused specifically on their most recent prescribing experiences. In phase 3 of the study, 18 service users (14 male and 4 female) were recruited, during which their experiences of having medication prescribed was explored.

This interview‐based survey found that though there was some agreement between the attitudes and perceptions of prescribers and service users, there were also some important differences including differences with respect to the purposes of prescribed medication, when to prescribe, and under what conditions depot medication produces optimal results. It is not always clear to service users as to why certain medicines were prescribed nor is the information provided always understood. A considerable amount of prescribing practice is based on assumptions.

Even though medication (both oral and depot) has been shown to be useful in certain situations, nevertheless, the type of medication, dose and mode of administration continues to be idiosyncratic and inconsistent. This paper seeks to contribute to the debate by identifying in which pharmacological interventions for people with severe mental health problems could be improved.

In past years, Zuclopenthixolacetate as well as Flupentixoldecanoate have each proven to be reliable and efficient in the treatment of schizophrenic psychoses. In a specially implemented psychiatric treatment unit (PTU) we administered a high‐dose depot neuroleptic combination therapy initially consisting of both substances to seriously ill schizophrenic prisoners who exhibited highly aggressive behaviour (N = 20). We initially used both antipsychotics at the same time as a simple regimen in order to restore the prisoners’ health to enable them to return to their home prisons. A single coercive intervention was performed in 14 out of 20 prisoners which was followed by a second one in two cases according to Article 101 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure. On average, prisoners needed a treatment course of 30.4 days. Within this time PANSS global scores were reduced by approximately 40%. Side effects occurring as a consequence of neuroleptic treatment were negligible and could be dealt with.

This case study describes the use of antipsychotic medication by an adult woman with learning disabilities. The study first provides detailed clinical information about Jane, drawing on a comprehensive mental health assessment and then provides a thematic analysis of Jane's experiences of antipsychotic medication.

Neuroleptic non-compliance remains a serious challenge for the treatment of psychosis. Non-compliance is predominantly attributed to side effects, lack of illness insight, reduced well-being or poor therapeutic alliance. However, other still neglected factors may also play a role. Further, little is known about whether psychiatric patients without psychosis who are increasingly prescribed neuroleptics differ in terms of medication compliance or about reasons for non-compliance by psychosis patients. As direct questioning is notoriously prone to social desirability biases, we conducted an anonymous survey. After a strict selection process blind to results, 95 psychiatric patients were retained for the final analyses (69 participants with a presumed diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis, 26 without psychosis). Self-reported neuroleptic non-compliance was more prevalent in psychosis patients than non-psychosis patients. Apart from side effects and illness insight, main reasons for non-compliance in both groups were forgetfulness, distrust in therapist, and no subjective need for treatment. Other notable reasons were stigma and advice of relatives/acquaintances against neuroleptic medication. Gain from illness was a reason for non-compliance in 11-18% of the psychosis patients. Only 9% of all patients reported no side effects and full compliance and at the same time acknowledged that neuroleptics worked well for them. While pills were preferred over depot injections by the majority of patients, depot was judged as an alternative by a substantial subgroup. Although many patients acknowledge the need and benefits of neuroleptic medication, non-compliance was the norm rather than the exception in our samples.

This article examines the issues involved in the treatment with antipsychotic medication of forensic patients with schizophrenia. Poor compliance with medication may lead to a worsening of positive psychotic symptoms and increase the risk of re‐offending. Nurses and other members of the forensic multidisciplinary team spend long periods of time with patients and may form close therapeutic alliances with them. These staff have an important role in helping patients with medication‐related issues, thereby improving treatment outcome.

High‐secure hospital patients often have complex presentations that are marked by co‐morbidity, violence, histories of poor concordance with oral medication, and treatment resistance. The ability to give a long‐acting medication with a low propensity for extra pyramidal side effects is of potential value to clinicians treating these patients. Risperidone Long‐acting Injection (RLAI) is the first long‐acting atypical antipsychotic medication and may be potentially useful in this population. This paper aims to investigate this issue.

This was a retrospective, naturalistic study to investigate the use and effectiveness, using hard outcome measures, of RLAI in the four UK high‐secure psychiatric hospitals. Hospital pharmacy databases at Ashworth, Broadmoor, Carstairs and Rampton hospitals were used to identify all patients who had been prescribed RLAI. Anonymised data were then obtained from the pharmacy databases and case notes which were then pooled.

A total of 159 patients were prescribed RLAI, most of whom had schizophrenia. The mean length of treatment with RLAI was 65 weeks (range two to 260 weeks) and the mean maximum dose was 43.2 mg every two weeks (range 25‐75 mg every two weeks). No serious adverse effects were reported. In total, 42 per cent (67) patients responded to RLAI in as much as that they either remained on it in the long‐term or were discharged to conditions of lower security whilst taking it. As there was no control group, it is not possible to determine if RLAI was a significant factor in such discharges to conditions of lower security. Of those patients who failed to respond to RLAI, 44 per cent were subsequently treated with clozapine.

This pragmatic multi‐centre study of a small but complex patient group demonstrated that RLAI was effective in 42 per cent of patients and was well‐tolerated.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the training needs of the next generation of psychiatrists, and barriers in prescribing first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), long-acting injectable (LAIs) antipsychotics and clozapine.

An electronic survey was sent to psychiatry residents (N= 75/288, 26 percent) at four Canadian residency programs in late December 2017. The survey was based on an instrument originally developed at the University of Cambridge and consisted of 31 questions in 10 content domains.

Nearly 80 percent of residents were aware that FGAs and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have similar efficacy. However, extra-pyramidal symptoms and lack of training experience were the leading concerns associated with the prescribing of FGAs. Although over 90 percent of residents felt confident about initiating an oral SGA as a regular medication, only 40 percent did so with FGAs. Confidence with initiating LAIs and clozapine was 60 and 61 percent, respectively.

The survey highlights the need for better training in the use of FGAs, clozapine and LAIs. These medications can be effectively used in providing patients with the most appropriate evidence-based treatment options to improve treatment outcomes, while ensuring that these resources are not lost to the future generations of psychiatrists.

The survey may be the first of its kind to assess antipsychotic prescribing attitudes in Canadian psychiatry residents in multiple sites.

Antipsychotic drugs are frequently prescribed to people with intellectual disabilities (ID) to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and behavioural symptoms with and without mental condition. Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of treatment effects and adverse effects, and limiting the treatment duration. Studies have shown that adherence to prescription guidelines is beneficial for clients’ outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the adherence to antipsychotic drug prescription guidelines in two treatment settings.

A checklist, based on existing antipsychotic drug prescription guidelines, was used to evaluate the adherence of prescribers to guidelines in two settings in the Netherlands, i.e., in specialized intellectual disability (ID) care organizations and mental health care organizations. Data from medical records of clients who used antipsychotic drugs (n=299) were compared to the items of the checklist.

Treatment effects were measured with validated scales in both settings in only 2.7 per cent of cases. Prescriptions were for problem behaviour in the absence of a psychotic disorder or psychotic symptoms in 90 per cent (specialized ID care) and in 79 per cent (mental health care) of cases. In specialized ID care pipamperone (31.9 per cent) and in mental health care risperidone (48.5 per cent) was most often prescribed. Adverse effects were monitored more frequently in specialized ID care.

The adherence to guidelines for prescribing antipsychotic drug to people with ID is insufficient in the Netherlands, because of shortcomings in the evaluation of treatment and adverse effects.

Clozapine is a well-known antipsychotic medication licensed for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but there is limited research available to suggest its efficacy in the context of personality disorder and intellectual disabilities presenting with high-risk behaviour with or without psychotic symptoms. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the benefits of using clozapine in patients with intellectual disabilities and personality disorder that present with a complex picture of serious risk of harm to both their life and the lives of others.

The authors present five patients with intellectual disabilities and serious life-threatening challenging behaviour whom were started on clozapine as part of their multidisciplinary treatment plan to manage their presentation. The authors completed baseline assessment of five main symptom domains and then repeated this assessment following treatment with clozapine.

In all five cases use of clozapine was objectively associated with an improvement in symptomatology, quality of life and a safe transfer to the community.

The findings suggest that judicious use of clozapine could be considered as one of the effective pharmacological strategies in the management of patients with intellectual disabilities and personality disorder who present with serious life-threatening challenging behaviours.

The purpose of this paper is to establish and evaluate a psychotropic medication education group for men with intellectual disability on a secure psychiatric ward.

A multi-disciplinary team was convened to oversee the project. A curriculum was developed that covered major classes of psychotropic drugs as well as broader themes related to taking medication and general wellbeing. Each group session incorporated a range of teaching methods supported by accessible materials. Evaluation was by qualitative and quantitative methods.

There was interest and enthusiasm for the group. Participant feedback was generally positive and most of those who completed the group reported achieving their personal learning goals. There was no significant difference in results of a medication knowledge test at baseline and at the end of the course. Feedback from group members and reflections of the course facilitators are discussed.

The results of this small-scale study may not be applicable to other groups or settings. Evaluation measures seemed unable to capture some elements of the group processes and outcomes.

Establishing and running a psychoeducational group on a low-secure ward for men with intellectual disabilities is possible and potentially valuable. Learning from this project will be useful for others considering group-based interventions for people with intellectual disability.

This paper adds to the limited literature describing interventions to improve medication knowledge in people with intellectual disability.