Javaheri KR, McLennan JD. Adherence to Antipsychotic
Adverse Effect Monitoring Among a Referred Sample of Children with Intellectual Disabilities.
J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 2019;
29:235-240. [PMID:
30810348 DOI:
10.1089/cap.2018.0167]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Despite frequent use of antipsychotic medications to target severe behavioral problems among children with intellectual disabilities (ID), there is little information as to the extent to which adverse effect monitoring is in place for this population. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the extent to which monitoring for adverse effects was documented in health records of a cohort of children with ID who had been prescribed antipsychotic medication.
METHODS
Data were available on all children referred to a mental health clinic at a children's hospital in Canada who had ID and behavioral difficulties with intake appointments between September 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017. Charts of all those on antipsychotic medications were reviewed for a 12-week period to determine the extent to which adverse effect monitoring was documented using the parameters stipulated by the Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children (CAMESA), including laboratory, anthropometric, and neurological measures.
RESULTS
The database was composed of 47 patients of whom 25 were on antipsychotics (56% boys; mean age 13 [SD 3] years). The most commonly used antipsychotic was risperidone (48%). The extent of adherence to the guidelines was (1) 96% for weight, height, and body mass index; (2) 84% for extrapyramidal symptom screening; (3) 80% for blood pressure; (4) 64% for abdominal girth and liver enzymes; (5) 60% for fasting plasma glucose; and (6) 56% for fasting lipids. Only 20% had all core recommended parameters documented.
CONCLUSIONS
There were significant gaps in adverse effect monitoring in this cohort. Examination of variation in larger samples from multiple clinical services are required to determine the extent of this quality care gap. Several barriers to adherence are proposed with suggested solutions.
Collapse