Bharti Rao

The Social Functioning Questionnaire: a rapid and robust measure of perceived functioning.

Background: The Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ), an eight-item selfreport scale (score range 0–24), was developed from the Social Functioning Schedule (SFS), a semi-structured interview which has been used primarily with non-psychotic patients and has good test-retest and inter-rater reliability as well as construct validity. The SFQ was developed following the need for a quick assessment of perceived social function. Aims: To give further details of old and new data sets from studies involving over 4000 subjects assessed with the SFQ illustrating its epidemiological and clinical associations. Method: New data were analysed from a national epidemiological study, a comparison of key-worker and subject versions of the SFQ, and reanalysis of data from three earlier clinical studies, of psychiatric emergencies, general practice psychiatric patients and those with recurrent psychotic illnesses. These data were examined further to determine their range, their relationship to other clinical measures, and change over time in clinical trials. Results: The population mean score in 4164 subjects was 4.6 and the data from all studies suggested that a score of 10 or more indicated poor social functioning. Those presenting as psychiatric emergencies had the poorest social function (mean 11.4) and psychiatric patients from general practice the best function (mean 7.7) of the clinical populations. The eight item scores had a normal distribution in psychiatric populations and a skewed one in a normal population; scores were relatively stable over the short (weeks) and long-term (months), and were high in the presence of acute mental health disturbance and personality disorder, giving support to the validity of the scale. The results from a UK sample of a randomly selected population specifically weighted for ethnic minorities showed similar social function across groups.

Neuroleptics in the treatment of aggressive challenging behaviour for people with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial (NACHBID)

OBJECTIVE(S) To assess the effects and cost-effectiveness of haloperidol, risperidone and placebo on aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability. DESIGN A double-blind randomised controlled trial of two drugs and placebo administered in flexible dosage, with full, independent assessments of aggressive and aberrant behaviour, global improvement, carer burden, quality of life and adverse drug effects at baseline, 4, 12 and 26 weeks, and comparison of total care costs in the 6 months before and after randomisation. At 12 weeks, patients were given the option of leaving the trial or continuing until 26 weeks. Assessments of observed aggression were also carried out with key workers at weekly intervals throughout the trial. SETTING Patients were recruited from all those being treated by intellectual disability services in eight sites in England, one in Wales and one in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS Patients from all severity levels of intellectual disability; recruitment was extended to include those who may have been treated with neuroleptic drugs in the past. EXCLUSION CRITERIA treatment with depot neuroleptics/another form of injected neuroleptic medication within the last 3 months; continuous oral neuroleptic medication within the last week; those under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 or Queensland Mental Health Act 2000. INTERVENTIONS Randomisation to treatment with haloperidol (a typical neuroleptic drug), risperidone (an atypical neuroleptic drug) or placebo using a permuted blocks procedure. Dosages were: haloperidol 1.25-5.0 mg daily; risperidone 0.5-2.0 mg daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary: reduction in aggressive episodes between baseline and 4 weeks using Modified Overt Aggression Scale. Secondary: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist; Uplift/Burden Scale; 40-item Quality of Life Questionnaire; Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser scale; Clinical Global Impressions scale. Economic costs recorded using a modified version of Client Service Receipt Inventory for 6 months before and after randomisation. RESULTS There were considerable difficulties in recruitment because of ethical and consent doubts. Twenty-two clinicians recruited a total of 86 patients. Mean daily dosages were 1.07 mg rising to 1.78 mg for risperidone and 2.54 mg rising to 2.94 mg for haloperidol. Aggression declined dramatically with all three treatments by 4 weeks, with placebo showing the greatest reduction (79%, versus 57% for combined drugs) (p = 0.06). Placebo-treated patients showed no evidence of inferior response in comparison to patients receiving neuroleptic drugs. An additional study found that clinicians who had not participated in clinical trials before were less likely to recruit. Mean total cost of accommodation, services, informal care and treatment over the 6 months of the trial was 16,336 pounds for placebo, 17,626 pounds for haloperidol and 18,954 pounds for risperidone. CONCLUSIONS There were no significant important benefits conferred by treatment with risperidone or haloperidol, and treatment with these drugs was not cost-effective. While neuroleptic drugs may be of value in the treatment of aggressive behaviour in some patients with intellectual disability, the underlying pathology needs to be evaluated before these are given. The specific diagnostic indications for such treatment require further investigation. Prescription of low doses of neuroleptic drugs in intellectual disability on the grounds of greater responsiveness and greater liability to adverse effects also needs to be re-examined.

Overcoming the barriers experienced in conducting a medication trial in adults with aggressive challenging behaviour and intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND Aggressive challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability (ID) is frequently treated with antipsychotic drugs, despite a limited evidence base. METHOD A multi-centre randomised controlled trial was undertaken to investigate the efficacy, adverse effects and costs of two commonly prescribed antipsychotic drugs (risperidone and haloperidol) and placebo. RESULTS The trial faced significant problems in recruitment. The intent was to recruit 120 patients over 2 years in three centres and to use a validated aggression scale (Modified Overt Aggression Scale) score as the primary outcome. Despite doubling the period of recruitment, only 86 patients were ultimately recruited. CONCLUSIONS Variation in beliefs over the efficacy of drug treatment, difficulties within multidisciplinary teams and perceived ethical concerns over medication trials in this population all contributed to poor recruitment. Where appropriate to the research question cluster randomised trials represent an ethically and logistically feasible alternative to individually randomised trials.

The assessment of dangerous and severe personality disorder: lessons from a randomised controlled trial linked to qualitative analysis

Randomised controlled trials are difficult to carry out in high security prisons and very few have succeeded. We describe here a randomised controlled trial of early versus late assessment for the pilot phase of the new DSPD programme for dangerous and severe personality disorder, which assessed prisoners (n = 75) at baseline, then six months, and then one year after randomisation. The trial enjoyed 100% success in getting records and obtained useful qualitative data that helped to explain the findings, but the trial was compromised by repeated protocol violations on grounds that were seldom acknowledged openly but which we conclude were primarily due to ignorance of the purpose of such trials. This led to such contamination of the two arms of the trial that no clear conclusions could be drawn from the trial itself, except that relative costs showed expected differences. However, the trial also showed that the assessment programme was associated with better quality of life in terms of social relationships (p = .03), with an increase in aggression (p = .01), and with worse social functioning in those with less severe personality disorder (p < .01), with the qualitative data suggesting that frustration and unfulfilled expectations lay behind these findings. Suggestions are made about revisions to the assessment process and the changes necessary for successful trials to be mounted in the future.

The Quantification of Violence Scale: a Simple Method of Recording Significant Violence

Background: Although there are many rating scales recording the incidence and intensity of violence there are none that are specifically concerned with the measurement and assessment of severe violence. Aims: To develop a scale sensitive to variation centred on severe violence, establish its normative values, test its feasibility, and assess its reliability and validity in different populations. Method: The Quantification of Violence Scale (QOVS) was developed in two stages. First, a list of 30 commonly eXperienced violent episodes in clinical psychiatric practice were evaluated and tested by weighting each episode by severity. Second, a numerical scale used to record the severity of the episode according to its degree of planning, intent and consequences. Violent episodes in two clinical populations were compared using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) and the preliminary version of the QOVS over periods up to 18 months, following which the numerical scale was developed. Results: Good (0.60—0.74) to EXcellent (> 0.75) test—retest and inter-rater reliability agreement was obtained with both forms of the scale (intra-class correlations of 0.75 and 0.69 respectively), and similar agreement with MOAS scores was reached (0.67) in clinical populations. The scale was quick and easy to use in practice, and a score defining severe violence (9 on the numerical scale and 16 on the matched scale) was determined. Conclusions: The QOVS, in its two forms, is a useful measure of recording significant violence in clinical and forensic practice.

The Bed Requirement Inventory: A Simple Measure To Estimate The Need For A Psychiatric Bed

Objective: To develop an assessment of bed need that was as little affected by personal biasas possible. Method: The Bed Requirement Inventory (BRI) is an eight-point scale designed to identify the appropriate use of an acute psychiatric bed. This is completed by a member of the ward staff, usually a nurse, and takes 5 minutes to fill in. The reliability, validity and feasibility of using the scale in normal practice were tested in a one-year study, and variations ininappropriate bed use described. Results: The inter-rater reliability of the scale was good (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.63) and a comparison of the need for a psychiatric bed (comparing the BRI score with the judgement of an independent multidisciplinary group of professionals) also showed good agreement (k 1/4 0.69), suggesting reasonable validity (although when the assessment was made by the named nurse agreement was less good). Results from a year-long survey in two West London hospitals showed that 17% of admissions were inappropriate and 32% had delayed discharge, black Caribbean patients had a significantly higher proportion (25%) of inappropriate admission than others (11%) and those referred from housing charities andhostels had a higher proportion (50%) of inappropriate bed use at some time than other groups(33%). Conclusions: The Bed Requirement Inventory is a quick and reliable method of determiningthe appropriate use of a psychiatric bed and could be of use in estimating local bed needs. Delayeddischarge remains a serious reason for inappropriate bed use in London.