Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:01:40.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ECT audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

R. I. McClelland*
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health, School of Medicine, The Queen's University of Belfast, The Whitla Medical Building, Belfast BT9 7BL
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2000, The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Sir: I read with interest the audit on ECT practice (Brookes et al, Psychiatric Bulletin, September 2000, 24, 329-330) and would like to express my appreciation of this important piece of work. As you know, ECT practice is one of the most empirically-based interventions in mental health practice with established efficacy and is nevertheless one of the most controversial, particularly in the public domain. It is also the one area where we have now produced guidance, albeit guidance that is due for review and updating. It is essential that where explicit standards exist, the audit process is implemented at local level to ensure that optional standards are achieved. There is little justification for the present variation in psychiatric practice in the administration of ECT in the face of such clear guidance. This audit and its impact is an example that should be followed elsewhere. The audit process is key to improving practice at local level and we should encourage, as a matter of policy, the publication of many more examples of effective clinical audit.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.