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

Purpose This commentary aims to define STOMP and STAMP, describes its history and evolution and the authors’ thoughts about future directions given the lack of clear evidence base for prescribing and deprescribing psychotropic medication given for behaviour thought to be challenging. Design/methodology/approach This commentary defines the authors’ clinical experience and personal thoughts about STOMP achievements and challenges for the future delivery. Findings This commentary details STOMP development to date and highlights the potential areas for further study and research to grow understanding, professional confidence and delivery. Research limitations/implications This commentary highlights much of the currently accepted research and areas that have poor quality evidence or are of interest for future study. STOMP definition, especially of inappropriate prescribing, is key to redefining the work. Practical implications This commentary highlights the potential impact of STOMP and STAMP on prescribing rates and the need for better definition, processes and education for workforce development. There is a major need to understand the benefit of behavioural intervention to support the optimisation of medication. Originality/value This commentary builds on personal experience and current understanding to postulate considerations to further the delivery of STOMP and STAMP.