RESUMO
The new Dutch Care and Coercion Act aims to better regulate the use of psychotropic drugs for challenging behaviour in people with an intellectual disability. This study explores experiences of intellectual disability physicians (IDPs) in prescribing psychotropic drugs and investigates how the Act and the new multidisciplinary guideline on challenging behaviour affects their practice. A qualitative study was conducted, consisting of nine semi-structured in-depth interviews with IDPs, followed by a thematic analysis. It was found that IDPs experienced the new Act and guideline as supportive of their work as guardians of the appropriate use of psychotropic drugs. The multidisciplinary character of the guideline was experienced positively. However, IDPs are faced with organisational barriers and time constraints, as such, they question the feasibility of implementing the Act. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the Care and Coercion Act may support the existing shift towards the appropriate use of psychotropic drugs if required conditions can be met.
Assuntos
Deficiência Intelectual , Médicos , Coerção , Prescrições de Medicamentos , Humanos , Deficiência Intelectual/tratamento farmacológico , Psicotrópicos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Both the classification of personality disorder in intellectual disability (ID) and its identification in practice are deemed to be difficult. A simpler approach to classification and its relationship to challenging behaviours were tested in an adult Jamaican population with ID. METHOD: The study was carried out in Kingston, Jamaica, as part of a programme of field trials to determine the utility of the proposed revision of personality disorders in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), in a population of adults with ID living with their families or in supported care homes. Thirty-eight people with borderline (n = 5), mild (n = 16), moderate (n = 14) and severe (n = 3) ID were assessed at face-to-face interview and with relatives or staff using the provisional criteria for severity of personality disorder and its associated domain traits, and challenging behaviour was assessed using the Problem Behaviour Check List (PBCL) (a 5-point, 7-item scale). RESULTS: Using the severity scale 18 patients (47%) had no personality disorder, 7 (18%) had personality difficulty, 9 (24%) had mild personality disorder, and 4 (11%) had moderate personality disorder. None of the sample had severe personality disorder in which there is high risk of harm to self or others. Of the four major trait domains, provisionally named anankastic, detached, emotional and dissocial, three were evenly distributed in those with personality disturbance with the antagonistic (antisocial) trait less commonly shown (6 only). Scores on the PBCL were higher in those with increasing severity of personality disorder (P = 0.03) and those in the antagonistic personality trait domain had the highest PCL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous difficulties in assessing personality disorder in intellectual difficulties the ICD-11 classification was easy to administer in practice in this population, and the higher problem behaviour scores in those with greater severity of personality disturbance support its construct validity.