Antipsychotic medication in learning disability Impact of audit and evidence-based medicine on quality of prescribing in a community assessment treatment unit

Aims and method

Antipsychotic medication, an effective treatment modality in the management of psychiatric/behaviour disorders in people with learning disability, is often criticised because of poor clinical practice. Rational and judicious use, subject to evidence-based guidelines and systematic monitoring, is mandatory. A five-year clinical audit programme on the quality of prescribing for this clientele was undertaken.

Results

Significant quality improvement with minimal resource consumption was demonstrated.

Clinical implications

Clinical audit facilitates high-quality prescribing: pragmatic and economic, it can easily be integrated into routine clinical practice.

Neuroleptic usage in a community mental handicap unit

Increasing concern has been expressed in the psychiatric literature and general press about the use of neuroleptic medication for the treatment of behaviour disturbance in the mentally handicapped (Buck & Sprague, 1989). The issue was highlighted in a television documentary (Public Eye, BBC2, 1 May 1992) which reported a number of cases of tardive dyskinesia in mentally handicapped people who had been treated with neuroleptics. The programme, although taking a characteristically slanted view, will have made an impression on relatives, patients and the general public. It was also intimated that British families may be preparing to test the legal grounds for prescribing these drugs to the mentally handicapped, particularly where there is no formal psychiatric diagnosis.

Central nervous system medication use in older adults with intellectual disability: Results from the successful ageing in intellectual disability study

OBJECTIVE

Information on the rates and predictors of polypharmacy of central nervous system medication in older people with intellectual disability is limited, despite the increased life expectancy of this group. This study examined central nervous system medication use in an older sample of people with intellectual disability.

METHODS

Data regarding demographics, psychiatric diagnoses and current medications were collected as part of a larger survey completed by carers of people with intellectual disability over the age of 40 years. Recruitment occurred predominantly via disability services across different urban and rural locations in New South Wales and Victoria. Medications were coded according to the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties central nervous system medication categories, including sedatives/hypnotics, anti-anxiety agents, antipsychotics, antidepressants, central nervous system stimulants, movement disorder medications and anticonvulsants. The Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults was used to assess behaviour.

RESULTS

Data were available for 114 people with intellectual disability. In all, 62.3% of the sample was prescribed a central nervous system medication, with 47.4% taking more than one. Of those who were medicated, 46.5% had a neurological diagnosis (a seizure disorder or Parkinson's disease) and 45.1% had a psychiatric diagnosis (an affective or psychotic disorder). Linear regression revealed that polypharmacy was predicted by the presence of neurological and psychiatric diagnosis, higher Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults scores and male gender.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to focus on central nervous system medication in an older sample with intellectual disability. The findings are in line with the wider literature in younger people, showing a high degree of prescription and polypharmacy. Within the sample, there seems to be adequate rationale for central nervous system medication prescription. Although these data do not indicate non-adherence to guidelines for prescribing in intellectual disability, the high rate of polypharmacy and its relationship to Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults scores reiterate the importance of continued medication review in older people with intellectual disability.

Medication use among Australian adults with intellectual disability in primary healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There is concern about widespread medication use by people with intellectual disability (ID), especially psychotropic and anticonvulsant agents. However, there is sparse information on prescribing patterns in Australia.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study was conducted between 2000 and 2002 among adults with ID who live in the community in Brisbane, Australia. Medication data were extracted from a health screening tool. Demographic and medical data were collected from telephone interviews and medical records.

RESULTS

Of 117 participants, 35% were prescribed psychotropic medications, most commonly antipsychotics, and 26% anticonvulsants. Complementary medications (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fish oil, and herbal products) were used by 29% of participants. After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, psychotropic medication use was significantly associated with having a psychiatric illness (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% CI [1.0, 20.6]) and challenging behaviours (4.4, [1.1, 17.3]).

CONCLUSIONS

People with ID use a broad range of medications. Psychotropic medications continue to be the most predominant agents prescribed for this population. Psychotropic medication use is positively associated with having a psychiatric illness and challenging behaviours.

Pharmacological management of challenging behavior of individuals with intellectual disability

In many Westernized countries, including Australia, concerns about the use of psychotropic drugs to manage the challenging behavior of individuals with intellectual disability have resulted in the development of legislative and procedural controls. Although these constraints may limit indiscriminate use, employing medication remains a common practice. This study examined information about 873 individuals (566 males, 307 females) who were the subjects of reports to the Intellectual Disability Review Panel in March 2000 concerning the use of chemical restraint. A high proportion of people with intellectual disability were reported to have received drugs for purposes of behavioral restraint. The range of drugs was extensive, although those from the antipsychotic class were the most frequently reported. Many individuals concurrently received more than one type of drug or more than one drug from the same drug class. More males than females and more older than younger individuals were administered medication. A relationship between gender and age was apparent, with younger males but older females dominating. The use of drugs to mange the behavior of people with intellectual disability may at times be warranted. However, it is important that the extent and type of drug use, as well as the characteristics of those who are medicated, be subject to ongoing scrutiny.

'As required' neuroleptics: have these drugs a place in the management of challenging behaviour in intellectual disability?

The present study examined the prescription pattern and usage of 'as required' neuroleptics (PRNs) in the management of challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disability in a hospital setting. The prescription cards and drug administration records of residents were scrutinized to see how many of them were prescribed PRNs and how many had actually received these drugs during the previous 3 months. The results were compared in the following groups: (1) males and females; (2) the behavioural and nonbehavioural sectors; (3) intensive treatment wards (ITWs) for severe challenging behaviour which had a better staff:resident ratio than the rest of the behavioural wards; and (4) those prescribed PRNs together with the daily administration of neuroleptics and those without. It was found that more females used PRNs and that the prescription rate was higher in the behavioural sector. A better staff:resident ratio did not bring about any reduction in the usage of PRNs. The use of these drugs was not influenced by whether PRNs were prescribed along with regular neuroleptics or not. Further research is required to delineate the precise role of PRNs for challenging behaviours in this population, and to determine if PRNs can be used along with other modes of therapeutic interventions, instead of administering neuroleptics on a regular basis for this indication.

A follow-up study of prescribing for people with learning disabilities previously in National Health Service care in Leicestershire, England

A 6-year follow-up was undertaken of 486 people with learning disabilities who in 1990 had lived in institutional care. Despite changes to the nature of accommodation and an extensive drug review programme, the overall proportion of people receiving the different categories of psychotropic drugs remained similar in 1990 and 1996. Only the prescribing of antidepressants was markedly changed. Contrary to expectations the prevalence of prescribing of many psychotropic drugs rose in the community settings.

A survey of aggressive behaviour among a population of persons with intellectual disability in Queensland

A survey was conducted on aggressive behaviour within a population of 2412 persons with intellectual disability in Queensland, Australia. Two hundred and sixty-one individuals were identified who engaged in at least one form of aggressive behaviour, yielding an overall prevalence of 11%. The relative prevalence of aggressive behaviour was higher among institutionalized persons (35%) when compared to those living in group homes (17%) or other community-based facilities (3%). The aggressive behaviour sample included a higher percentage of males (64%). Most were described as functioning in the severe/profound (54%) or moderate (31%) range of intellectual disability with one-third having no intelligible speech. Two-thirds of the sample received medication for their challenging behaviour, while only one-third had behavioural programmes. Eighty per cent engaged in three or more forms of aggression. Many also displayed self-injury (34%) or property destruction (30%). Surveys of aggressive behaviour may prove useful for coordinating services.