The UK psychiatrists' experience of rationalising antipsychotics in adults with intellectual disabilities: A qualitative data analysis of free‐text questionnaire responses

Author:

(Shoumi) Deb Shoumitro1ORCID,Limbu Bharati1ORCID,Nancarrow Tom2,Gerrard David3,Shankar Rohit4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Brain Sciences Imperial College London Truro Cornwall UK

2. University of Exeter Medical School Truro Cornwall UK

3. NHS England and NHS Improvement London UK

4. Cornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research (CIDER), University of Plymouth Peninsula School of Medicine Truro Cornwall UK

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundOverprescribing of off‐licence psychotropic medications, particularly antipsychotics, for challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities without a psychiatric disorder is a significant public health concern. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service England launched an initiative in 2016, ‘STopping Over‐Medication of People with learning disabilities, autism or both (STOMP)’, to address this concern. STOMP is supposed to encourage psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to rationalise psychotropic medication use in people with intellectual disabilities. The current study aims to gather UK psychiatrists' views and experience of implementing the STOMP initiative.MethodsAn online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disabilities (estimated 225). Two open‐ended questions allowed participants to write comments in response to these questions in the free text boxes. One question asked about the challenges psychiatrists faced locally to implement STOMP, and the other asked for examples of successes and positive experiences from the process. The free text data were analysed using a qualitative method with the help of the NVivo 12 plus software.ResultsEighty‐eight (estimated 39%) psychiatrists returned the completed questionnaire. The qualitative analysis of free‐text data has shown variation within services in the experience and views of the psychiatrists. In areas with good support for STOMP implementation provided through adequate resources, psychiatrists reported satisfaction in the process with successful antipsychotic rationalisation, better local multi‐disciplinary and multi‐agency working, and increased awareness of STOMP issues among the stakeholders such as people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers and multidisciplinary teams, and improved quality of life caused by reduced medication‐related adverse events in people with intellectual disabilities. However, where resource utilisation is not optimum, psychiatrists seemed dissatisfied with the process with little success in medication rationalisation.ConclusionsWhereas some psychiatrists are successful and enthusiastic about rationalising antipsychotics, others still face barriers and challenges. Much work is needed to achieve a uniformly positive outcome throughout the United Kingdom.

Funder

Research for Patient Benefit Programme

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Developmental and Educational Psychology,Education

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3