Search results

The aim of this paper is to assess the monitoring standards of methylphenidate prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) against the NICE guidelines.

The data on methylphenidate prescribing by GPs in Chorley and South Ribble were collected using a custom designed proforma from patient records held at GP surgeries and interviews with GPs. The data were then analysed using descriptive statistics.

The study finds that the majority (96 per cent) of the subjects who were on methylphenidate prescription from GPs were monitored by specialist services. This included both the National Health Service and the private sector. Only 62.5 per cent had documentation on physical monitoring and psychosocial intervention.

The results of the study showed that the monitoring of children on methylphenidate did not conform to the NICE guidelines. This highlighted the need for clear communication of responsibility of monitoring across the services. This is more important in regions where there are not optimal functioning child and adolescent mental health services.

As far as the authors know this was the first audit of its kind assessing the standards of methylphenidate prescribing done by general practitioners.

The aim of this study is to ascertain a trend of the section 136 assessments over a period of time and compare it with the standards laid down by the code of practice.

The study looks at trends over a period of eight months since the opening of the section 136 services. The demographic details such as age, gender, and ethnicity were recorded. The other variables recorded include reason for using section 136, the place of assessment, time of referral, total time of assessment, the assessors undertaking the assessment, outcome of referral, whether the patient was under the influence of alcohol and suffered any concomitant physical problems and whether the police were present during the assessment

A total of 45 assessments were undertaken under section 136 of the Mental Health Act. The majority (93.3 percent) of the assessments were done in section 136 suite. Threats to self harm (35.5 percent) was the most common reason of detention. Mood disorders were the commonest diagnosis (22.2 percent each). A total of 17 (37.8 percent) of the patients detained were admitted to the inpatient units.

It was noticed that rate of section 136 assessments decreased over months after an initial surge. It was also noted that the conversion rate of admissions was low which raises questions about the rightful use of section 136 detentions.

It will be interesting to conduct future studies to find out the reasons for the surge in the use of section 136 detentions when a new service is set up for the same. It also need to be noted that the conversion rate was low which raises the appropriateness of section 136 detentions, together with the finding that one‐third of the detained patients had a discharge diagnosis of alcohol and drug problems raises the possibility whether section 136 is overused among this group.

Previously studies have been conducted regarding the section 136 assessments but this study monitors all the variables identified, to be monitored, by the code of practice.