Attitudes of psychiatrists, nurses and service users towards prescribing and administrating depot antipsychotic medication

Author(s):  
Claude Besenius ◽  
Eleanor Bradley ◽  
Peter Nolan
1998 ◽  
Vol 49 (9) ◽  
pp. 1232-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth E. Heyscue ◽  
Gary M. Levin ◽  
Jacqueline P. Merrick

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
B. Luft ◽  
E. Berent

Introduction:Long-acting depot antipsychotic medication is associated with extrapyramidal side effects (EPS). This may reduce adherence to medication, and precipitate relapse (1). Clearly, EPS is a major drawback and early detection is essential. However, in an earlier review of patients’ medical notes, we identified only one patient with an examination that recorded the presence of EPS. Despite the fact that a number of rating scales are available. We proposed that the application of these rating scales, would allow us to improve the assessment of EPS.Method:All patients prescribed a depot antipsychotic or long-acting risperidone injection, were identified. the Barnes Akathisia Scale (2) was chosen to rate akathisia, a modified Simpson-Angus scale (3) was chosen to rate parkinsonism and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (4) was chosen to rate tardive dyskinesia.Results:A total of 43 patients were evaluated. 23 (53%) patients showed drug induced EPS. the total number of positive cases of akathisia was 12 (28%), and 10 (23%) patients were found to have tardive dyskinesia. 13 (30%) patients were found to have drug induced parkinsonism.Conclusions:Our screening programme has identified high rates of previously undiscovered drug induced EPS.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (13) ◽  
pp. 2369-2378 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Wykes ◽  
J. Evans ◽  
C. Paton ◽  
T. R. E. Barnes ◽  
D. Taylor ◽  
...  

BackgroundCapturing service users’ perspectives can highlight additional and different concerns to those of clinicians, but there are no up to date, self-report psychometrically sound measures of side effects of antipsychotic medications.AimTo develop a psychometrically sound measure to identify antipsychotic side effects important to service users, the Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure.MethodAn initial item bank was subjected to a Delphi exercise (n = 9) with psychiatrists and pharmacists, followed by service user focus groups and expert panels (n = 15) to determine item relevance and language. Feasibility and comprehensive psychometric properties were established in two samples (N43 and N50). We investigated whether we could predict the three most important side effects for individuals from their frequency, severity and life impact.ResultsMSE is a 53-item measure with good reliability and validity. Poorer mental and physical health, but not psychotic symptoms, was related to side-effect burden. Seventy-nine percent of items were chosen as one of the three most important effects. Severity, impact and distress only predicted ‘putting on weight’ which was more distressing, more severe and had more life impact in those for whom it was most important.ConclusionsMSE is a self-report questionnaire that identifies reliably the side-effect burden as experienced by patients. Identifying key side effects important to patients can act as a starting point for joint decision making on the type and the dose of medication.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Marie Grünwald ◽  
Claire Duddy ◽  
Richard Byng ◽  
Nadia Crellin ◽  
Joanna Moncrieff

Abstract Background: Increasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support.Aim: To explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health inputDesign & Setting: Realist review in general practice settings. Method: A realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and/or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews.Results: Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to carrying out meaningful reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, and perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory. Conclusions: The review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. M. Grünwald ◽  
C. Duddy ◽  
R. Byng ◽  
N. Crellin ◽  
J. Moncrieff

Abstract Background Increasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support. Aim To explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input. Design & setting Realist review in general practice settings. Method A realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews. Results Meaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory. Conclusions The review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.


Author(s):  
M. Gill ◽  
K. McKenna ◽  
M. McCauley ◽  
M. Gulzar

IntroductionPatients with major mental illness are recognised to be at risk of premature death for a multitude of reasons. This initiative aimed to improve the physical health monitoring of patients prescribed depot antipsychotic medication in a catchment area of ~36 000 in Ireland.ObjectivesInternational best practice recommends monitoring of blood tests, physical parameters such as weight, BMI, waist circumference and blood pressure, and side effects of patients prescribed antipsychotic medication. A clinic was established to target these interventions.MethodsA cohort of patients receiving antipsychotics in long-acting injectable form was chosen. A twice-yearly, multidisciplinary health monitoring clinic was established. Evaluation involved an audit of medical records which measured the proportion of those attending the clinic who had blood test monitoring and physical parameters recorded.ResultsBefore the clinic’s implementation, 30% of patients had evidence of some blood test monitoring, 9% had evidence of complete blood testing and one patient had evidence of physical health parameters having been recorded. One year after the implementation 78% of patients had evidence of some blood test monitoring, 61% had evidence of full blood test monitoring and 100% had evidence of physical parameters recorded.ConclusionsThe clinic was positively received by patients, and led to improved teamwork. Recommendations include organising concurrent psychiatric and phlebotomy clinics so that patients may avail of psychiatric review and blood testing at a single appointment. As a result of the increased focus on physical health monitoring, a similar project is planned to target all patients prescribed antipsychotics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document