A STOMP-focused evaluation of prescribing practices in one assessment and treatment unit for people with intellectual disabilities

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
J. Painter, Winola Chio, L. Black, D. Newman
{"title":"A STOMP-focused evaluation of prescribing practices in one assessment and treatment unit for people with intellectual disabilities","authors":"J. Painter, Winola Chio, L. Black, D. Newman","doi":"10.1108/tldr-04-2022-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to understand whether psychotropic prescribing practices for people with intellectual disabilities are in keeping with best practice guidelines.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis service evaluation project was a retrospective analysis of routinely collected data from the care records of all 36 people with intellectual disability discharged from an intellectual disability assessment and treatment unit during the first five years of the Stop Over medicating People with Intellectual Disabilities and/or autistic people (STOMP) initiative. Data were gathered at four time points (pre-admission, discharge, 6- and 12-month follow-up) before being analysed to understand whether psychotropic prescribing differed among people with different clinical characteristics/traits/diagnoses. Changes over time were also explored to ascertain whether and how prescribing altered from admission to discharge, and over the subsequent year of community living.\n\n\nFindings\nMost people with intellectual disabilities left the assessment and treatment unit on fewer regular psychotropic medications and at lower doses than at admission. These optimised regimes were still apparent 12 months post-discharge, suggesting effective discharge planning and community care packages. Inpatients with severe intellectual disabilities generally received more anxiolytics and hypnotics, at higher doses. Autistic people tended to receive more psychotropics in total and at higher cumulative doses, a pattern that persisted post discharge. A third of the sample were admitted on regular anti-psychotic medications despite having no corresponding psychotic diagnosis, a proportion that remained relatively stable through discharge and into the community.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study highlights subsets of the intellectual disability population at particular risk of receiving high doses of psychotropics and a feasible template for providers intending to undertake STOMP-focused evaluations.\n","PeriodicalId":54179,"journal":{"name":"Tizard Learning Disability Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tizard Learning Disability Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/tldr-04-2022-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to understand whether psychotropic prescribing practices for people with intellectual disabilities are in keeping with best practice guidelines. Design/methodology/approach This service evaluation project was a retrospective analysis of routinely collected data from the care records of all 36 people with intellectual disability discharged from an intellectual disability assessment and treatment unit during the first five years of the Stop Over medicating People with Intellectual Disabilities and/or autistic people (STOMP) initiative. Data were gathered at four time points (pre-admission, discharge, 6- and 12-month follow-up) before being analysed to understand whether psychotropic prescribing differed among people with different clinical characteristics/traits/diagnoses. Changes over time were also explored to ascertain whether and how prescribing altered from admission to discharge, and over the subsequent year of community living. Findings Most people with intellectual disabilities left the assessment and treatment unit on fewer regular psychotropic medications and at lower doses than at admission. These optimised regimes were still apparent 12 months post-discharge, suggesting effective discharge planning and community care packages. Inpatients with severe intellectual disabilities generally received more anxiolytics and hypnotics, at higher doses. Autistic people tended to receive more psychotropics in total and at higher cumulative doses, a pattern that persisted post discharge. A third of the sample were admitted on regular anti-psychotic medications despite having no corresponding psychotic diagnosis, a proportion that remained relatively stable through discharge and into the community. Originality/value This study highlights subsets of the intellectual disability population at particular risk of receiving high doses of psychotropics and a feasible template for providers intending to undertake STOMP-focused evaluations.
以STOMP为重点的对一个智力残疾患者评估和治疗单位的处方实践的评估
目的本研究旨在了解智力障碍患者的精神药物处方是否符合最佳实践指南。设计/方法/方法本服务评估项目是对从智障评估和治疗单位出院的所有36名智障人士的照护记录中常规收集的数据进行回顾性分析,这些数据是在“停止过度用药智障人士和/或自闭症人士”(STOMP)倡议实施的头五年里收集的。数据收集于4个时间点(入院前、出院、6个月和12个月的随访),然后进行分析,以了解具有不同临床特征/特征/诊断的人的精神药物处方是否存在差异。随着时间的变化也被探讨,以确定是否和如何改变处方从入院到出院,并在随后的一年的社区生活。研究发现:大多数智障患者离开评估和治疗部门时,服用的常规精神药物较少,剂量也低于入院时。这些优化方案在出院后12个月仍然明显,表明有效的出院计划和社区护理方案。严重智力残疾的住院患者通常接受更多的抗焦虑药和催眠药,剂量更高。自闭症患者接受的精神类药物总体上更多,累积剂量也更高,这种模式在出院后持续存在。三分之一的样本接受了常规的抗精神病药物治疗,尽管没有相应的精神病诊断,这一比例在出院和进入社区期间保持相对稳定。独创性/价值本研究突出了接受高剂量精神药物风险特别高的智力残疾人群的子集,并为打算进行以stomp为重点的评估的提供者提供了一个可行的模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tizard Learning Disability Review
Tizard Learning Disability Review EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
20
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信