Summary Evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are at an increased risk of dying by suicide, with anaesthetists at particularly high risk. However, much of the data on which this is based are historical. With a focus on the epidemiology and methods used, we conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding suicide and suicidal behaviour among anaesthetists to provide a more contemporary summary. The systematic review process was adapted from a previous similar study in veterinary surgeons and was consistent with recommended guidance. We identified 54 articles published in or after 1990 that had anaesthetist‐specific data and met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these reported epidemiological data, of which four were published after 2000. Although none of the more recent studies reported standardised mortality rates specific to suicide in anaesthetists, the proportion of anaesthetists dying by suicide was increased with respect to comparator groups, which is consistent with previous findings. Eleven studies that included information on suicidal behaviour reported suicidal ideation in 3.2–25% of individuals (six studies) and suicide attempts in 0.5–2% (four studies). Studies reporting methods of suicide highlighted the use of anaesthetic drugs, particularly propofol, supporting the suggestion that the increased risk of suicide in anaesthetists may be related to the availability of the means. We discuss our findings in relation to other recently published data and guidance concerning mental health problems in anaesthetists.

Background/objective(s) Psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed among adults with intellectual disability, often in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the extent, range, and nature of the available research on medication use and practices and medication management in people with intellectual disability taking psychotropic medications for behaviours that challenge. Materials and methods A scoping review of research studies (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed design) and Grey Literature (English) was carried out. Databases included: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Scopus. A three-step search strategy was followed, with results screened by two independent reviewers. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers using a data extraction tool with results mapped and presented using a narrative form supported by tables and diagrams to the research questions. Results Following the removal of duplicates, records were screened, full texts assessed, and 49 studies were included. Medication outcomes included reduced repetitive, stereotypic, and/or aggressive behaviours. High dosing/prescribing in the setting of an absent/unclear clinical indication was associated with worsening of symptoms for which psychotropics were prescribed. While psychotropics had a role in managing behaviours that challenge, reducing or discontinuing psychotropics is sometimes warranted. Study designs were frequently pragmatic resulting in small sample sizes and heterogeneous cohorts receiving different doses and combinations of medications. Access to multidisciplinary teams, guidelines, medication reviews, staff training, and enhanced roles for carers in decision-making were warranted to optimize psychotropic use. Conclusions These findings can inform prescribing interventions and highlight the need for timely and comprehensive patient outcome data, especially on long-term use of high doses of psychotropics and what happens when reduce or stop prescribing these doses. KEY MESSAGES Psychotropic medications are frequently prescribed for people with intellectual disabilities, often at high doses and these medications are associated with both positive and negative patient outcomes. Work to rationalize psychotropic use has been reported with interventions aiming to reduce polypharmacy or deprescribe a single psychotropic medicine. These interventions had mixed success and risk of relapse was documented in some studies. Limitations in sample size and heterogenous patient cohorts make it challenging to understand the risks and benefits associated with reducing or stopping psychotropic medicines. Patient, carer, and clinician partnerships...

Introduction: Psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed among adults with intellectual disability (ID), often in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis. As such, there is great disparity between the estimated prevalence of mental illness and the rates of psychotropic medication use amongst people with ID. ‘Off-label’ use of these medications may account for much of this discrepancy, in particular their use in the management of challenging behaviour. This has come under scrutiny due to the myriad of side effects and the deficiency of high-quality data supporting their use for this indication. Understanding the causes and justifications for such disparity is essential in discerning the efficacy of current prescription practice. Objective: To explore the existing evidence base regarding the prescription and management of psychotropic medications in adults with ID. The aim will be achieved through identifying the psychotropic medications commonly prescribed, the underlying rationale(s) for their prescription and the evidence available that demonstrates their appropriateness and effectiveness. Additionally, the paper will seek to evaluate the availability of any existing guidance that informs the management of these medications, and the evidence and outcomes of psychotropic medication dose reduction and/or cessation interventions. Inclusion criteria: This review will consider studies that focus on the use of psychotropic medications amongst patients with ID. Methods: Research studies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed design) and Grey Literature (English) will be included. The search will be conducted without time restrictions. Databases will include: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Databased of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and Scopus. A three-step search strategy will be followed, with results screened by two independent reviewers. Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers using a data extraction tool with results mapped and presented using a narrative form supported by tables and diagrams.

Introduction: Psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed among adults with intellectual disability (ID), often in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis. As such, there is great disparity between the estimated prevalence of mental illness and the rates of psychotropic medication use amongst people with ID. ‘Off-label’ use of these medications may account for much of this discrepancy, in particular their use in the management of challenging behaviour. This has come under scrutiny due to the myriad of side effects and the deficiency of high-quality data supporting their use for this indication. Understanding the causes and justifications for such disparity is essential in discerning the efficacy of current prescription practice. Objective: To explore the existing evidence base regarding the prescription and management of psychotropic medications in adults with ID. The aim will be achieved through identifying the psychotropic medications commonly prescribed, the underlying rationale(s) for their prescription and the evidence available that demonstrates their appropriateness and effectiveness. Additionally, the paper will seek to evaluate the availability of any existing guidance that informs the management of these medications, and the evidence and outcomes of psychotropic medication dose reduction and/or cessation interventions. Inclusion criteria: This review will consider studies that focus on the use of psychotropic medications amongst patients with ID. Methods: Research studies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed design) and Grey Literature (English) will be included. The search will be conducted without time restrictions. Databases will include: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Databased of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and Scopus. A three-step search strategy will be followed, with results screened by two independent reviewers. Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers using a data extraction tool with results mapped and presented using a narrative form supported by tables and diagrams.

No abstract