Background:Management of chronic disease has become an increasing challenge to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. The introduction of supplementary prescribing was seen as a possible mechanism to address the needs of this patient group. Individuals with mental illness were considered particularly suitable for management in this way.Objective:To explore the views and experiences of patients with mental illness on being managed by a pharmacist supplementary prescriber in a secondary care outpatient setting.Methods:A study of patient experiences utilising semi-structured interviews and self-completion diaries was adopted. Eleven patients participated in the study. Data were analysed utilising code and retrieve, and content analysis respectively.Results:Patients valued the increased accessibility to, and continuity of, their prescriber compared with their experience of other healthcare professionals. Patients reported they were able to trust the pharmacist’s knowledge of medication, were provided with sufficient information regarding reasons for treatment and side effects, and felt that they had an active role in decisions concerning their healthcare.Conclusions:This exploratory study showed that patients had positive views of being managed by a supplementary prescriber. However, it should be noted that the number of participants was small. It is therefore important that further, more wide ranging research is conducted to evaluate pharmacist prescribing within mental health settings.

Many medicines available over the counter from pharmacies are known to have abuse potential, including diphenhydramine (DPH), an antihistamine with antimuscarinic properties used for the treatment of insomnia. We present a brief review of the literature describing DPH abuse, and report the case of GF, a 56 year old woman who was admitted to an inpatient addictions unit for detoxification from DPH. A literature search revealed five case reports of DPH abuse including a total of six patients, published between 1986 and 2001. All reported cases exhibited features of DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence, and there was an apparent link with antipsychotic usage. GF was treated with antipsychotics, and was using up to thirty 50 mg DPH tablets each day. She described feeling 'good and calm' and 'it stopped the tremors'. GF tolerated a gradual dose reduction schedule, and completed the detoxification programme relatively comfortably. She was discharged from the inpatient detoxification unit as planned, and had not relapsed at six months. The described case report highlights the importance of enquiring about non prescribed medication when taking a drug history. Similarly community pharmacists and GPs should be vigilant to excessive requests for DPH, particularly in patients with a psychotic illness.

Background Data suggest that approximately 50,000 adults with learning disabilities (LDs) in England and Wales are currently prescribed antipsychotic medication. Illness in this population is common, including significant rates of challenging behaviour and mental illness, but there is particular concern over the use of antipsychotics prescribed for reasons other than the treatment of psychosis. Control of challenging behaviour is the primary reason why such medications are prescribed despite the absence of good evidence for any therapeutic effect for this purpose. Objectives To assess the feasibility of recruitment and retention and to explore non-efficacy-based barriers to a blinded antipsychotic medication withdrawal programme for adults with LDs without psychosis compared with treatment as usual. A secondary objective was to compare trial arms regarding clinical outcomes. Design A two-arm individually randomised double-blind placebo-controlled drug reduction trial. Setting Recruitment was through community learning disability teams (CLDTs) in south Wales and south-west England. Participants Adults with LDs who are prescribed risperidone for treatment of challenging behaviour with no known current psychosis or previous recurrence of psychosis following prior drug reduction. Intervention A double-blind drug reduction programme leading to full withdrawal within 6 months. Treatment in the intervention group was gradually reduced over a 6-month period and then maintained at the same level for a further 3 months, still under blind conditions. In the control group, the baseline level of medication was maintained throughout the 9-month period. The blind was broken at 9 months, following final data collection. Main outcome measures Feasibility outcomes were (1) the number and proportion of general practices/CLDTs that progressed from initial approach to recruitment of participants and (2) the number and proportion of recruited participants who progressed through the various stages of the study. Trial arms were also compared regarding clinical outcomes, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist, the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disability checklist, the Antipsychotic Side-effect Checklist, the Dyskinesia Identification System Condensed User Scale, the Client Service Receipt Inventory, use of other interventions to manage challenging behaviour, use of as-required (pro re nata) medication and level of psychotropic medication use. Results Of the 22 participants randomised (intervention, n = 11; control, n = 11), 13 (59%) achieved progression through all four stages of reduction. Follow-up data at 6 and 9 months were obtained for 17 participants (intervention, n = 10; and control, n = 7; 77% of those randomised). There were no clinically important changes in participants’ levels of aggression or challenging behaviour at the end of the study. There were no expedited safety reports. Four adverse events and one serious adverse event were reported during the trial. Limitations Recruitment was challenging, which was largely a result of difficulty in identifying appropriate persons to consent and carer concerns regarding re-emergence of challenging behaviour. Reduced recruitment meant that the full trial became an exploratory pilot study. Conclusions The results indicate that drug reduction is possible and safe. However, concerns about taking part were probably exacerbated by limited availability of alternative (behavioural) interventions to manage behaviour; therefore, focused support and alternative interventions are required. The results of the qualitative study provide important insights into the experiences of people taking part in drug reduction studies that should influence future trial development. Future work We recommend that further work focuses on support for practitioners, carers and patients in reducing antipsychotic medication. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38126962. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract

IntroductionAs of 2015, as part of the implementation of the Welsh Government primary care plan and primary care clusters, the Welsh Government has encouraged non-medical healthcare professionals working in primary care to train as independent prescribers (IPs).ObjectivesThis research aimed to identify the number of NMIPs in primary care in Wales and describe their prescribing trend of items between 2011 and 2018, in order to compare their prescribing pattern before and after the implementation of primary care clusters for Wales.DesignRetrospective secondary data analysis and interrupted time series analysis in order to compare prescribing by non-medical independent prescribers (NMIPs) preimplementation and postimplementation of primary care clusters across Wales.ResultsOver the study period, 600 NMIPs (nurses n=474 and pharmacists n=104) had prescribed at least one item. The number of nurse IPs increased by 108% and pharmacists by 325% (pharmacists had the largest increase between July 2015 and March 2018). The number of items prescribed by NMIPs increased over time by an average of 1380 per month (95% CI 904 to 1855, p<0.001) after the implementation of primary care clusters compared with 496 (95% CI 445 to 548, p<0.001) prior its implementation. Approximately one-third of the items prescribed by NMIPs was within Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (HB) with only 4% in Powys Teaching HB.ConclusionThe number of NMIPs and their volume of prescribing in primary care in Wales has increased following the implementation of primary care clusters in 2015. This suggests that the Government’s recommendations of using NMIPs in primary care have been implemented. Future studies should focus on efficiency and quality of prescribing by NMIPs in primary care.