Improving knowledge of psychotropic prescribing in people with Intellectual Disability in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: People with Intellectual disability (ID) are likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication particularly antipsychotics without a clear clinical indication. This has given rise to a national initiative in the UK to stop overprescribing medication in this vulnerable population. While the goals are simple it is unclear if specialist ID services or primary care services in the UK should look to lead. Further, it is uncertain if primary care practitioners (GPs) can be systematically educated of the latest good practice developments and concerns in this specialised area. This study surveyed the knowledge level of a sample of GPs in Cornwall UK (county of 538,000) post a structured tutorial on psychotropic medication and people with ID.A 21 item questionnaire was delivered in meetings organised for all the county GPs a year after a talk given to the same demographic. The questionnaire conducted an assessment of the knowledge of national guidance on use of psychotropic medication in ID based on the subjects covered in the tutorial.Of the 60 expected GP participants the tutorial was attended by 44 GPs (73%) and the follow up meeting by 42 (70%). Ninety percent GPs in the follow up meeting filled the questionnaire. For 16 questions, more than 80% GPs gave correct responses whereas five questions attracted a correct answer from less than 80%. Majority of the GPs felt psychotropic medication management in people with ID should be specialist led.GPs' knowledge of issues relevant to prescribing in people with ID benefitted from the tutorial. However a clear need for the psychotropic medication management to be delivered via specialist care emerged. This raises issues of resource allocation and debate on whether people with ID require specialist provision due to lack of ability in main stream primary care to manage their needs.
<h4>Purpose</h4>People with Intellectual disability (ID) are likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication particularly antipsychotics without a clear clinical indication. This has given rise to a national initiative in the UK to stop overprescribing medication in this vulnerable population. While the goals are simple it is unclear if specialist ID services or primary care services in the UK should look to lead. Further, it is uncertain if primary care practitioners (GPs) can be systematically ...[more]
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the incidence of recorded mental illness and challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability in UK primary care and to explore the prescription of psychotropic drugs in this group.DesignCohort study.Setting571 general practices contributing data to The Health Improvement Network clinical database.Participants33,016 adults (58% male) with intellectual disability who contributed 211,793 person years' data.Main outcome measuresExisting and new records of mental illness, challenging behaviour, and psychotropic drug prescription.Results21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. During follow-up, the rate of new cases of mental illness in people without a history at cohort entry was 262 (95% confidence interval 254 to 271) per 10,000 person years and the rate of challenging behaviour was 239 (231 to 247) per 10,000 person years. The rate of new psychotropic drug prescription in those without a previous history of psychotropic drug treatment was 518 (503 to 533) per 10,000 person years. Rates of new recording of severe mental illness declined by 5% (95% confidence interval 3% to 7%) per year (P<0.001), and new prescriptions of antipsychotics declined by 4% (3% to 5%) per year P<0.001) between 1999 and 2013. New prescriptions of mood stabilisers also decreased significantly. The rate of new antipsychotic prescribing was significantly higher in people with challenging behaviour (incidence rate ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 2.27; P<0.001), autism (1.79, 1.56 to 2.04; P<0.001), and dementia (1.42, 1.12 to 1.81; P<0.003) and in those of older age, after control for other sociodemographic factors and comorbidity.ConclusionsThe proportion of people with intellectual disability who have been treated with psychotropic drugs far exceeds the proportion with recorded mental illness. Antipsychotics are often prescribed to people without recorded severe mental illness but who have a record of challenging behaviour. The findings suggest that changes are needed in the prescribing of psychotropics for people with intellectual disability. More evidence is needed of the efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs in this group, particularly when they are used for challenging behaviour.
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate psychotropic prescribing in the intellectual disabilities population over 10 years, and associated mental ill health diagnoses.DesignComparison of cross-sectional data in 2002-2004 (T1) and 2014 (T2). Longitudinal cohort study with detailed health assessments at T1 and record linkage to T2 prescribing data.SettingGeneral community.Participants1190 adults with intellectual disabilities in T1 compared with 3906 adults with intellectual disabilities in T2. 545/1190 adults with intellectual disabilities in T1 were alive and their records linked to T2 prescribing data.Main outcome measuresEncashed regular and as-required psychotropic prescriptions.Results50.7% (603/1190) of adults in T1 and 48.2% (1881/3906) in T2 were prescribed at least one psychotropic; antipsychotics: 24.5% (292/1190) in T1 and 16.7% (653/3906) in T2; antidepressants: 11.2% (133/1190) in T1 and 19.1% (746/3906) in T2. 21.2% (62/292) prescribed antipsychotics in T1 had psychosis or bipolar disorder, 33.2% (97/292) had no mental ill health or problem behaviours, 20.6% (60/292) had problem behaviours but no psychosis or bipolar disorder. Psychotropics increased from 47.0% (256/545) in T1 to 57.8% (315/545) in T2 (p<0.001): antipsychotics did not change (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; p=0.280), there was an increase for antidepressants (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.96 to 4.00; p<0.001), hypnotics/anxiolytics (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.61; p=0.002), and antiepileptics (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; p=0.017). Antipsychotic prescribing increased for people with problem behaviours in T1 (OR 6.45; 95% CI 4.41 to 9.45; p<0.001), more so than for people with other mental ill health in T1 (OR 4.11; 95% CI 2.76 to 6.11; p<0.001).ConclusionsDespite concerns about antipsychotic prescribing and guidelines recommending their withdrawal, it appears that while fewer antipsychotic prescriptions were initiated by T2 than in T1, people were not withdrawn from them once commenced. People with problem behaviours had increased prescribing. There was also a striking increase in antidepressant prescriptions. Adults with intellectual disabilities need frequent and careful medication reviews.
Project description:BackgroundProviding care for ageing and vulnerable people with intellectual disability (ID) is challenging, and professionals working in ID care often have limited experience in palliative care. The current study provides insight into palliative care practices in ID care services and competencies of professionals and identifies ways to improve palliative care for people with ID.MethodsFor this study ten services in the Netherlands were recruited that provide care for people with mild to profound ID. Professionals in each of these services conducted a self-assessment of their palliative care policies and practices based on nine core element of palliative care described in the Dutch Quality Framework for Palliative Care. The self-assessment included a medical file review of a total of 100 people with ID who died non-suddenly. In addition, 424 professionals from the services returned a digital questionnaire on palliative care competencies and training needs.ResultsThe self-assessments showed that individual care plans were recorded for people with ID and that multidisciplinary teams provided physical, psychological, social and spiritual care. However, other core elements of palliative care, such as cooperation with other organisations and expertise in palliative care, were less present in ID care services. Only half of the services collaborated with regional organisations in palliative care, and most services listed no requirements for the palliative care skills of their professionals. The questionnaire showed that almost 10% of the professionals reported that they were not at all competent in providing palliative care, and 74% felt that they needed training in palliative care. Reported areas for improvement in the provision of palliative care were increasing the quality of palliative care, improving the expertise of professionals and identifying palliative care needs earlier.ConclusionsTo improve palliative care in ID care services changes are required both in competencies of professionals, and organisational policies and practices. Services should enhance awareness about palliative care for people with ID, strengthen collaboration with palliative care services, and offer training or support for professionals in assessing and meeting the needs of people with ID at the end of life.
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on people with intellectual disability (PwID). PwID are at higher risk of mental illness and receive psychotropic prescribing 'off licence' also, to manage distress behaviour. The lockdown and reduction of multidisciplinary face-to-face appointments had an impact on care delivery, the recourse possibly being psychotropic prescribing. It is imperative to comprehend the influence the pandemic had on psychotropic prescribing patterns to enable future planning.AimsThe aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic by comparing psychotropic prescribing patterns during the England lockdown with the prescribing patterns before lockdown in specialist urban and rural psychiatric services for PwID.MethodData was collected from Cornwall (rural) and London (urban) intellectual disability services in England as a service evaluation project to rationalise psychotropic prescribing. PwID in both services open across January 2020 to January 2021 were included. Baseline patient demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual disability level and neurodevelopmental and psychological comorbidities were collected. Baseline psychotropic prescribing and subsequent % change for each psychotropic group for the two services was compared using Pearson's chi-square and z-statistic (two tailed) with significance taken at P < 0.05.ResultsThe two centres London (n = 113) and Cornwall (n = 97) were largely comparable but for baseline differences in terms of presence of severe mental illness (37 v. 86, P < 0.001), challenging behaviour (44 v. 57, P < 0.05) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (37 v. 3, P < 0.001). There was an overall increase in psychotropic prescribing during lockdown in urban as compared with rural settings (11% v. 2%).ConclusionsThe pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.
Project description:People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) often present with challenging behaviors (CBs) mostly due to inappropriate environments and mental and physical disorders. Integrative care is recommended to address CBs. However, in clinical practice, psychotropic drugs are often prescribed off-label for CBs, although the effectiveness is unclear, and side effects frequently occur. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study to investigate the effect of integrative care provided by a collaboration of an ID specialized mental healthcare team and participants' own ID service providers' care team on reducing CBs and inappropriate off-label psychotropic drug prescriptions compared with care as usual. Participants (N = 33, aged 19-81 years) had a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability and used off-label psychotropic drugs. The primary outcome measures were the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the total dose of psychotropic drug prescriptions. At the study endpoint of 40 weeks, we found no effect of the intervention on the total ABC score and on the total dose of psychotropic drug prescriptions. In the intervention group, however, the psychotropic drug dose decreased significantly, while CBs did not change. The small sample size and not-completed interventions due to organizational problems may have affected our findings. This study illustrates the difficulties in the implementation of integrative care.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The prescribing of psychotropic drugs, i.e. antidepressants, sedatives (anxiolytics, hypnotics), and antipsychotics is considerable and a large proportion is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). There are concerns about dependency and medicalisation, and treatment decisions in psychiatry may appear arbitrary. Increased knowledge of GPs' opinions on the prescribing of psychotropics may lead to more rational use of these drugs. We aimed to quantify GPs' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour towards various aspects of psychotropic drug prescribing. METHODS:A questionnaire was distributed to physicians in all 199 GP practices in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The questions concerned determinants of psychotropic drug prescribing that had been identified in a previous, qualitative study. RESULTS:Questionnaires from 516 physicians (64% of whom were specialists in family medicine, 21% interns in family medicine, 15% others) at 152 GP practices (59% of which were state owned, 72% in an urban area, with a median of 7808 registered patients) were returned (estimated response rate: 48%). A majority - 62% - of GPs found it easier to start prescribing psychotropic drugs than to stop (95% confidence interval, 57%, 66%) vs. 8% (6%, 10%). Most GPs considered psychotherapy more suitable than psychotropic drugs in cases of mild psychiatric disease: 81% (77%, 84%) vs. 4% (3%, 6%). The problems treated with psychotropic drugs were considered to be mostly socioeconomic, or mostly medical, by similar proportions of physicians: 38% (34%, 42%) vs. 40% (36%, 45%). GPs were on average satisfied with their levels of antidepressant and sedative prescribing in relation to medical needs. More GPs regarded their prescribing of antipsychotics as being too low rather than too high: 33% (28%, 39%) vs. 7% (4%, 10%). CONCLUSIONS:This study illustrates the complexities of psychiatric drug treatment in primary care and identifies potential drivers of increased prescribing of psychotropics. The manifold factors, medical and non-medical, that affect prescribing decisions may explain a sense of arbitrariness surrounding psychotropic drug treatment. This notwithstanding, GPs seem mostly content with their prescribing.
Project description:Background/objective(s)Psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed among adults with intellectual disability, often in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the extent, range, and nature of the available research on medication use and practices and medication management in people with intellectual disability taking psychotropic medications for behaviours that challenge.Materials and methodsA scoping review of research studies (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed design) and Grey Literature (English) was carried out. Databases included: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Scopus. A three-step search strategy was followed, with results screened by two independent reviewers. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers using a data extraction tool with results mapped and presented using a narrative form supported by tables and diagrams to the research questions.ResultsFollowing the removal of duplicates, records were screened, full texts assessed, and 49 studies were included. Medication outcomes included reduced repetitive, stereotypic, and/or aggressive behaviours. High dosing/prescribing in the setting of an absent/unclear clinical indication was associated with worsening of symptoms for which psychotropics were prescribed. While psychotropics had a role in managing behaviours that challenge, reducing or discontinuing psychotropics is sometimes warranted. Study designs were frequently pragmatic resulting in small sample sizes and heterogeneous cohorts receiving different doses and combinations of medications. Access to multidisciplinary teams, guidelines, medication reviews, staff training, and enhanced roles for carers in decision-making were warranted to optimize psychotropic use.ConclusionsThese findings can inform prescribing interventions and highlight the need for timely and comprehensive patient outcome data, especially on long-term use of high doses of psychotropics and what happens when reduce or stop prescribing these doses.KEY MESSAGESPsychotropic medications are frequently prescribed for people with intellectual disabilities, often at high doses and these medications are associated with both positive and negative patient outcomes.Work to rationalize psychotropic use has been reported with interventions aiming to reduce polypharmacy or deprescribe a single psychotropic medicine. These interventions had mixed success and risk of relapse was documented in some studies.Limitations in sample size and heterogenous patient cohorts make it challenging to understand the risks and benefits associated with reducing or stopping psychotropic medicines.Patient, carer, and clinician partnerships are critical to advance medication management.
Project description:BackgroundPsychotropic drugs are frequently prescribed to people with dementia in nursing homes although severe adverse events and side effects are common. Less is known about the prevalence and types of psychotropic drug prescription in primary care for people with dementia.ObjectiveThis study examined the prevalence of psychotropic drug prescriptions in primary care among persons with dementia from the year of diagnosis onwards.MethodsA longitudinal observational study using electronic health record (EHR) data was conducted. People with dementia were selected from EHR data of 451 general practices in the Netherlands. Age and gender-adjusted psychotropic drug prescription rates were calculated per 1000 person-years from the year the dementia diagnosis was first recorded in general practice up to 8 years after diagnosis.ResultsData of 15,687 patients were analyzed. The prescription rate of psychotropic drugs (not including antidementia drugs) was 420 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 409; 431) in the first year after the recorded dementia diagnosis, which increased to 801 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 649; 989) in the eighth year. The most frequently prescribed drugs were antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antidementia drugs, followed by anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antiepileptics.ConclusionsAfter a dementia diagnosis is recorded in general practice, the prevalence of psychotropic drug prescriptions is substantial and increases steadily during the disease trajectory of persons with dementia. Although the (in)appropriateness of prescribing was not assessed, these insights may stimulate primary care clinicians to (re)consider their prescription policy of psychotropics for people with dementia more carefully.
Project description:ObjectivesPeople with intellectual disability are vulnerable in terms of health service provision due to increased comorbidity, higher dependency and cognitive impairment. This review explored the literature to ascertain what reasonable adjustments are evident in acute care to support people with intellectual disability, ensuring they have fair access and utilisation of health services.DesignScoping review.SettingAcute care settings.MethodsFive databases were systematically searched to identify studies that reported on the implementation of reasonable adjustments. Authors worked in pairs to screen studies for inclusion, data were extracted and charted and findings were synthesised according to content and themes.ResultsOf the 7770 records identified, six studies were included in the review. The volume of evidence was influenced by specific inclusion criteria, and only papers that reported on the actual implementation of a reasonable adjustment within an acute care setting were included. Many papers reported on the concept of reasonable adjustment; however, few identified its applications in practice.ConclusionsThe scoping review highlights a lack of research on the practice and implementation of reasonable adjustments within acute care settings. There is a need for increased support, education and the provision of intellectual disability specialists across acute care settings.
Project description:BackgroundPsychotropic medications are sometimes used off-label and inappropriately. This may cause harm to adolescents with intellectual disability. However, few studies have analysed off-label or inappropriate prescribing to this group.AimsTo examine the appropriateness of psychotropic prescribing to adolescents with intellectual disability living in the community in south-east Queensland, Australia.MethodOff-label medication use was determined based on whether the recorded medical condition treated was approved by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. Clinical appropriateness of medication use was determined based on published guidelines and clinical opinion of two authors who specialise in developmental disability medicine (J.N.T. and D.H.).ResultsWe followed 429 adolescents for a median of 4.2 years. A total of 107 participants (24.9%) were prescribed psychotropic medications on at least one occasion. Of these, 88 (82.2%) were prescribed their medication off-label or inappropriately at least once. Off-label or inappropriate use were most commonly associated with challenging behaviours.ConclusionsOff-label or inappropriate use of psychotropic medications was common, especially for the management of challenging behaviours. Clinical decision-making accounts for individual patient factors and is made based on clinical experience as well as scientific evidence, whereas label indications are developed for regulatory purposes and, although appropriate at a population level, cannot encompass the foregoing considerations. Education for clinicians and other staff caring for people with intellectual disability, and a patient-centred approach to prescribing with involvement of families should encourage appropriate prescribing. The effect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the appropriateness of psychotropic medication prescribing should be investigated.
