Search results

Patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) and additional psychiatric disorders are often treated with psychotropic medication. However, examinations of side effects among these patients are scarce. The purpose of this pilot study is to examine the most frequently used side effect scale, UKU Side Effect Rating Scale (UKU-SERS), in this patient population.

The aim of the present study is to explore whether the UKU-SERS is feasible for patients with ID. The UKU-SERS consists originally of 48 items, measuring side effects of psychotropic medication. In the study, UKU-SERS was used to score a group of 13 adults with ID admitted to a specialised inpatient psychiatric unit. First, an expert panel of seven psychiatrists and five psychiatric nurses independently evaluated the UKU-SERS and decided which items they considered possible to score after observation alone. Second, a total of 26 staff members, based on observation, scored the 13 patients on the ward. These results were used as the basis for recommending items from UKU-SERS to be used. Items scored differently by the two groups were examined more thoroughly.

The expert panel and the ward staff agreed on 24 of the original 48 UKU-SERS items. The other 24 items were examined more thoroughly based on clinical meaningfulness. Consequently, 11 more items were included despite disagreement in the scorer groups. As expected, items that are based on observations seem more feasible than items based on the patients’ subjective experiences.

The revised checklist comprises 35 items and seems applicable for further research and for use in clinical settings for this patient population. It is possible to observe important side effects using the UKU Side Effect Scale, but adjustment of the scale is desirable to make it more appropriate for the specific purpose and target group.

The Scandinavian penal exceptionalism literature has focused largely on imprisonment but has yet to explore other aspects of the penal field in detail. This chapter provides an overview of the penal field in Norway and how community sanctions and measures have evolved within it. The author uses the work of Wacquant and Bourdieu to argue that there are three important levels within the Norwegian penal field: political, policy and practice. The author also discusses how drivers from the political and policy levels are affecting community-based penal practice. Using McNeill’s dimensions of mass supervision, the author discusses the implications of these changes for three less-explored aspects of punishment in Norway: the serving of short sentences at home on electronic monitoring, supervision of people under 18 and ‘punishment debt’ enforcement.

The UKU side effect rating scale for adults with intellectual disabilities (UKU-SERS-ID) was developed to detect side effects among patients with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and face validity of the UKU-SERS-ID.

UKU-SERS-ID comprises 35 items. In total, 22 patients with ID were included from two specialized services for adults with ID and comorbid mental illness. All patients were rated on three different occasions by three clinicians; two nurses and one medical doctor. Reliability was estimated with Cohen’s κ. A focus group discussed the face validity of the items comprising the UKU-SERS-ID.

Respectively ten (nurse-nurse scores) and eight (nurse-doctor scores) items were considered difficult to score due to low prevalence of the symptoms. For the other items the reliability was acceptable. Through discussion in a focus group, with the reliability scores in mind, only one of the items of the UKU-SERS-ID was discarded.

The authors have developed a feasible side effect instrument for clinical practice. It is easy to score and relevant regarding important side effects.

The UKU-SERS-ID seems to be a feasible tool. Further investigations are mandatory in order to gain knowledge about distribution and phenomenology of side effects from psychotropic medication for individuals with ID.