We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Psychopharmacology is an integral component of psychiatric treatment and entails the selection, initiation, switching, discontinuation, and possible augmentation of psychotropic medications, as well as monitoring and assessment of symptom improvement. The choice of psychiatric medications should be tailored to a patient’s specific diagnosis, as well as their medical history and other psychiatric comorbidities. Side effects and therapeutic benefit should be assessed early on in treatment, in the event that a patient may benefit from a different medication in the same class, or from a medication with a different mechanism of action. Informed consent and patient education are paramount to ensuring that medication management is a collaborative effort between patient and provider. Safety, adherence, and polypharmacy are also important considerations when it comes to adjusting a psychotropic regimen over time. Advances in psychopharmacology include the potential use of pharmacogenetics as well as compounds such as psychedelics and the repurposing of existing medications.
There are many studies of the prescribing of psychotropic medications for people with intellectual disability. This chapter provides data about that prescribing, the issues associated with the data and the trends in usage. Excessive or unnecessary prescribing of psychotropic medication that exposes individuals to unwanted side-effects and imposes unwarranted costs on services has been the focus of many medications review programmes. This section will review outcomes data from medication reduction programmes for individuals with intellectual disability and present practitioner guidelines. The NHS England programme STOMP (Stopping The Over-Medication of People with a learning disability and autistic people) and STAMP (Supporting Treatment and Appropriate Medication use in Paediatrics) has been the focus for many initiatives in England, resulting in the generation of many resources to assist both professions and non-professionals involved with intellectual disability.
An introduction and overview of intellectual disability. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability (DSM-5 criteria) are covered: Deficits in general mental abilities; Impairment in adaptive functioning for individual’s age and sociocultural background which may include communication, social skills, person independence, and school or work functioning; All symptoms must have an onset during the developmental period; The condition may be subcategorised according to severity based on adaptive functioning as mild, moderate, or severe. The chapter also covers the role and evidence base for medication and key issues when prescribing for people with intellectual disability.
People with intellectual disability are more likely to experience mental health difficulties, and their treatment responses may differ from those in the general population. This book, written by leading clinical practitioners from around the world, provides comprehensive guidance on prescribing for people with intellectual disability, as well as general information on their clinical care. The guidelines have been conceived and developed by clinicians working in intellectual disability services. Combining the latest evidence and expert opinion, they provide a consensus approach to prescribing as part of a holistic package of care, and include numerous case examples and scenarios. Now in its fourth edition, this update reflects the changes in prescribing practice; it places emphasis on clinical scenarios and case examples and includes input from service users and their families. This is a practical guide for busy clinicians, and a valuable reference for all primary and secondary healthcare professionals.
In the initial wave of the opioid crisis, uninformed prescribing practices and lax oversight were the drivers of opioid addiction and death. Although opioid prescriptions have decreased by 44.4 percent between 2011-2020,1 the number of deaths linked to prescription opioids has decreased only marginally.2 The marked fall in opioid prescribing without a concomitant reduction in opioid-related deaths suggests that an at-risk population continued to receive prescription opioids, whether directly or indirectly, from a medical professional. Currently, illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) is the culprit for the majority of the approximately 81,000 annual opioid-related deaths.3 This finding has been misleadingly used to suggest that prescription opioids for chronic pain are no longer (and never were) a relevant concern,4 while the reality is that their lethal consequences are simply dwarfed by the marked rise in IMF deaths.5
This chapter deals with public health and pandemic preparedness. It recognises the five stages of a new pandemic (detection, assessment, treatment, escalation and recovery). The chapter also deals with the issue of laboratory preparedness and the need to maintain a critical mass of laboratory and skilled staff expertise at all times in order to be able to respond rapidly and effectively to a new emerging pandemic.
Dentists are permitted to obtain, supply, possess, administer, and prescribe medicines for the management of their patients’ oral health. In Australia, dental prescribing and provision of medicines are regulated by individual state and territory drug legislation, as well as through national rules and regulation through the Dental Board of Australia, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In Aotearoa New Zealand, subsidisation of medicines is determined through the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) and categorisation of medicines and legalities around their availability is determined by the Medicines Act 1981, with listing of approved medicines on the Pharmaceutical Schedule.
Drug-related illness (DRI) is a common problem in the elderly. Misuse of medications and inappropriate prescribing account for over half of all hospital admissions for DRI and both are potentially preventable. Physicians are the gatekeepers to prescription medication access and, in this role, they have the opportunity to prevent exposure to unnecessary and inappropriate medication and influence the use of medications by their elderly patients. Effective interventions to improve physician prescribing have been identified but they are costly to introduce, they require ongoing maintenance to maintain their effectiveness, they do not address the problems created by multiple prescribers or the challenges of keeping up-to-date on the growing number of new drugs that enter the market each year. Computer-based drug information networks and expert decision-making support systems are proposed as one means of providing (1) an accurate record for the prescribing physicians of drugs currently dispensed to their elderly patients, (2) a review of problems in existing and new prescriptions, and (3) an expert resource to select drug treatment. Canada is in an ideal situation to pioneer the development of these systems, but to do so, policies need to be put in place to address three problems. First, there is inadequate information available about the risks and benefits of drugs in the elderly because older sicker adults are often excluded in clinical trials of drug-effectiveness. Requirements for drug approval need to be amended so that sufficient evaluation of the risks and benefits of new drugs are carried out in the elderly. Second, computerization in the health care sector is central to the development of electronic decision-support systems in health care delivery. Future policy needs to be directed to the development of an effective infrastructure to facilitate the transition to an integrated computerized health sector. Third, the ethical and legal issues related to the access of prescription data through electronic networks need to be identified and clear guidelines for use of this new technology need to be developed.
Specialist Perinatal Mental Health Services (SPMHS) are a new development in Ireland. This service evaluation examined the impact of the introduction of a SPMHS multidisciplinary team (MDT) on prescribing practices and treatment pathways in an Irish maternity hospital.
Methods:
Clinical charts were reviewed to collect data on all referrals, diagnoses, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in a SPMHS over a 3-week period in 2019. The findings were compared to the same 3-week period in 2020 following the expansion of the SPMHS MDT.
Results:
In 2019 (n = 32) and 2020 (n = 47), most (75 and 79%, respectively) assessments were antenatal. The proportion of patients prescribed psychotropic medication within the SPMHS was not significantly different from 2019 (31%) to 2020 (23%), though more patients were already prescribed psychotropic medications at the time of referral (22% in 2019 v. 36% in 2020). There was an increase in MDT interventions in 2020 with more input from psychology, clinical nurse specialist (CNS), and social work intervention. Adherence to prescribing standards improved from 2019 to 2020.
Conclusion:
Prescribing patterns remained unchanged between 2019 and 2020. Improvement was observed in adherence to prescribing standards and there was increased provision of MDT interventions in 2020. Broader diagnostic categories were also used in 2020, possibly suggesting that the service is now providing more individualized care.
Edited by
Masum Khwaja, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London,Peter Tyrer, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
This chapter considers the use of medication as an emergency response in the management of violent and disturbed behaviour. It addresses the complex factors surrounding the decision to use rapid tranquillisation, followed by reviewing the risks and benefits of specific medication options. This is discussed within the context and continuum of acute patient care, in keeping with good practice principles, and with consideration to the relevant patient-related and medication-related risks. The current evidence for using medication or ECT in the management of a medium- and longer-term risk of violence in the context of mental illness is briefly reviewed. The recommendations are applicable to all inpatient mental health units in the United Kingdom.
As all first line options in treating First Episode Psychosis (FEP) are similarly effective there is a consensus among prescribing guidelines that clinicians and patients should consider side-effect profile as the ‘driver’ of initial choice of antipsychotic. Anecdotally it has been observed that different care teams prescribe particular medications preferentially.
Objectives
To evaluate the patterns of antipsychotic prescribing in patients with FEP at the time of initial treatment and over the first year with the Early Intervention Service (EIS).
Methods
Medical records of all patients who had completed 1 year of follow-up with EIS in Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (n=274) were reviewed. The first antipsychotic prescribed and antipsychotic prescribed at 12-months was recorded alongside initiating care team (EIS, non-EIS community services, inpatient services).
Results
99% (n=272) of patients were prescribed an antipsychotic. 46% were initiated by inpatient serves, 40% non-EIS community services and 14% EIS. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone accounted for 95% of initial prescriptions. Different care teams prescribed antipsychotics preferentially (p=<0.005) (Fig.1). Rates at which initial medication was continued at 12-months varied according to initial prescription (P=<0.05) (Fig.2).
Conclusions
The frequency that specialist EIS services prescribed aripiprazole as initial treatment contrasts the preference for olanzapine in other services. Olanzapine has a significant metabolic side effect profile, is sedating and was least likely to be continued at 12 months. This raises questions about why non-FEP specialist services prefer olanzapine and whether EIS services can support these services around initial medication choices more likely to be continued throughout the key first year of treatment.
Oral propranolol therapy is commonly used for the prevention of tachyarrhythmias in infancy and childhood. Propranolol is commercially produced in four concentrations allowing varying volumes to be administered. However, quite often an alternative strength of propranolol liquid is issued without clear change in instructions or warning. This may lead to parents inadvertently administering the wrong dose.
We describe the importance of relational factors in prescribing practices and discuss how they may influence treatment outcomes. Although relational factors play a part in every clinician–patient interaction, they are particularly relevant when managing patients with complex emotional needs. We discuss how relational prescribing can add value when incorporated into standard practice. We introduce psychodynamic theory principles, and we suggest a framework to facilitate reflection and support decision-making when clinicians are faced with complex prescribing decisions.
Antimicrobials have revolutionised clinical care, but their use and misuse has contributed to the current drug-resistance emergency. The prescription of antimicrobials demand that prescribers demonstrate technical skills such as knowledge about pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics, up-to-date awareness of emerging infections and understanding of local and national drug susceptibility. In addition to these skills, prescribers must also demonstrate optimal and effective communication with patients, particularly when antibiotics are not warranted. These ‘softer’ skills are essential to balance the influence of social or cultural factors on decisions by all stakeholders involved in antibiotic usage. To balance these demands, prescribers can engage in systematic decision making that reflects upon the need and benefits of using antimicrobials. This will ensure that optimal diagnostic and imaging tests inform such decisions; following recognised guidance and best practice, whilst acknowledging the local drug susceptibilities and available resources; and engage and support patients and families to share decisions about antibiotic use and follow-up care.
The prescribing of medicines by a range of health professions is pivotal to the success of the future NHS. Prescribing is a key enabler of specialist and advanced practice, and health professionals that can prescribe medicines are crucial members of healthcare delivery teams. Widening the prescribing of medicines to some professions in addition to the medical profession has changed the role boundaries of those prescribing professions, necessitating changes to relationships between those involved in the patient’s care. The teams in which prescribers work are across the full range of professions, extending beyond traditional boundaries, and include consideration of housing, education, employment as well as physical, mental and social health. This diversity has introduced a need for further integrated working and collaboration across the system. Excellent teamwork, clinical governance, communication and information sharing are crucial, as is the need for team members to have a clear understanding of one another’s roles and the ability to communicate with one another.
As healthcare professionals we strive to provide the best treatments for all our patients. We should have the confidence that after we have made an accurate diagnosis and assessment of clinical need, then the treatment which we recommend should be the best available for each patient. Evidence-based prescribing can be defined as using the best available information to recommend the most effective treatment for the person you are treating. At present we appear to be under siege from an assault of ‘fake news’ stories or ‘alternative facts’. As clinicians we have a duty to do the best for our patients on the most accurate information. In order to do this we require an armamentarium which includes the ability to sift fact from fiction. This chapter will provide a practical outline of how to sift the evidence and give you the confidence to prescribe using the best evidence base. It will also cover the issues of pharmacovigilance, adverse drug reactions and consider the future of evidence-based prescribing.
Coronavirus 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.
Aims
The 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.
Method
Data 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.
Results
The 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%).
Conclusions
The pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.
The most frequently prescribed analgesic drugs in primary care centers in Turkey are diclofenac and paracetamol, respectively. In this study, we aimed to compare paracetamol-included prescriptions (PIP) and diclofenac-included prescriptions (DIP) generated for adult patients in primary care.
Methods:
In this cross-sectional study, PIPs (n = 280 488) and DIPs (n = 337 935) created for adults by systematic sampling among primary care physicians working in Istanbul in 2016 (n = 1431) were examined. The demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and additional drugs in PIPs and DIPs were compared.
Results:
Women constituted the majority in both groups (69.8% and 67.9%, respectively; P < 0.05), and mean age at PIP (52.6 ± 18.8 years) was lower compared to DIP (56.3 ± 16.1 years), (P < 0.05). In single-diagnosis prescriptions, 11 of the 15 most common diagnoses in PIP were respiratory tract infections (47.9%); three pain-related diagnoses formed 4.6% of all these prescriptions. In DIP, the number of pain-related diagnoses, mostly of musculoskeletal origin, was eight (28.5%); four diagnoses (7.8%) were upper respiratory tract infections. While hypertension was the third most common diagnosis in PIP (6.1%), it was ranked first in DIP (8.0%). The percentage of prescriptions with additional analgesic (14.0% versus 18.3%, P < 0.001), proton-pump inhibitor (13.8% versus 18.4%; P < 0.001), and antihypertensive (22.0% versus 24.8%, P < 0.001) was lower in PIP compared to DIP. However, the percentage of prescriptions with antibiotics (31.3% versus 14.7%, P < 0.001) was higher in PIP.
Conclusion:
Paracetamol appears to be preferred mostly in upper respiratory tract infections compared to the preference of diclofenac rather in painful/inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions. The presence of hypertension among the most commonly encountered diagnoses for these analgesic drugs points to challenges in establishing the diagnosing-treatment match and indicates potential irrational prescribing practice, especially for interactions.
Benzodiazepines (BZD) are psychotropic drugs prescribed in psychiatry for their anxiolytic, hypnotic and sedative properties. Several guidelines aimed to limit the chronic use of BZDs. However, BZDs prescribing that does not comply with international recommendations remains widespread, estimated in France at 20% for hypnotic BZDs.
Objectives
The aims of our study were to evaluate BZDs prescribing practices in the treatment of insomnia and to assess their compliance with international recommendations.
Methods
This is a cross-sectional study conducted through a Google-forms self-administered questionnaire,intended for psychiatrists and psychiatric residents, over a period of two months, from April 1 to May 31, 2019.
Results
One hundred physicians practicing in psychiatry answered our questionnaire. The response rate was 28%. Four BZDs are recommended for the treatment of insomnia, none of which is available in Tunisia. Almost the third of the participants did not systematically look for signs of sleep apnea syndrome before treating an insomnia (30.5%). For treating insomnia, the majority of the participants began by indicating hygieno-dietetic rules (64%), 4% prescribed directly a BZD. Cognitive behavioral therapy was not indicated at all by the particiants. The maximum duration of prescribing BZDs in insomnia was 4 weeks in 20% of cases, and more than 4 weeks in 38% of cases. Among the participants, 41% prescribed BZDs for the treatment of chronic insomnia.
Conclusions
Insomnia appear to be badly managed and early drug prescribing is frequent. These practices do not comply with the recommendations of good practice and increase the risk of dependance and other side effects.
Benzodiazepines (BZD) are psychotropic drugs prescribed in psychiatry for their anxiolytic, hypnotic and sedative properties. Several guidelines aimed to limit the chronic use of BZDs. However, BZDs prescribing that does not comply with international recommendations remains widespread, estimated in France at 30% for anxiolytic BZDs.
Objectives
The aims of our study were to evaluate BZDs prescribing practices in the treatment of anxiety and to assess their compliance with international recommendations.
Methods
This is a cross-sectional study conducted through a Google-forms self-administered questionnaire,intended for psychiatrists and psychiatric residents, over a period of two months, from April 1 to May 31, 2019.
Results
One hundred physicians practicing in psychiatry answered our questionnaire. The response rate was 28%. The most prescribed BZD for anxiolytic purposes was Prazepam (76.2%). Clonazepam was prescribed for anxiolytic purposes in 10.5% of cases. Of the 105 participants, 48 indicated that they prescribed BZDs for anxiolytic purposes in states of acute stress (45.7%), 28.6% prescribed them for the treatment of mild to moderate anxiety manifestations in anxiety disorders. For the treatment of anxiety without panic attacks, 20% indicated that they prefer a short half-life BZD, 80% a long half-life BZD. The maximum duration of BZDs prescription for anxiolytic purposes was 12 weeks (62%), and 6 months in 10% of cases.
Conclusions
BZDs are often prescribed in psychiatry for their anxiolytic property, sometimes in a way that does not comply with the recommendations of good practice, with regard to the prescribed molecules, their indications and the duration and modalities of prescription.