{"title":"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","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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
A STOMP-focused evaluation of prescribing practices in one assessment and treatment unit for people with intellectual disabilities
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.