To determine the annual rates of assaults and threats to psychiatrists, describing the situations and staff involved, using a retrospective postal questionnaire of 139 doctors working in South Wales.

Over the year, 17% of respondents reported one or more assaults (of these, 42% were assaulted more than once) and 32% reported one or more threats. The most junior senior house officers (SHOs) were significantly more likely to have experienced an incident, regardless of the individual's gender or attendance at a course in managing aggression. Most assaults (61%) were committed by patients from general adult psychiatry, and half occurred during urgent assessments. Eighteen (58%) of the assailants were known to have previously assaulted amember of staff, and this information was known to the doctor before the assault for 16 (88%). Five (16%) of the assailants had been drinking alcohol prior to the assault. Twenty-nine (78%) of the assaults were documented in the case notes and 6 (19%) were reported to management.

Some staff (in particular, inexperienced SHOs) are at greater risk, and efforts should be made to identify and help these individuals and/or grades to deal with aggression. All psychiatric staff should be trained to manage violence. Staff should be encouraged to report incidents to management, so that employers can identify and address problem areas.

Safety features of rooms used for clinical interviews were assessed throughout our mental health unit. Following this pilot survey, 12 safety standards were agreed and adopted by a multi-disciplinary audit meeting. Recommendations were disseminated throughout the trust. Adherence to the accepted standards for interview room safety was assessed at 6 months and 1 year after baseline. Following each assessment, results were presented so that the audit cycle was completed twice.

At 6 months 46 interview rooms were assessed against the 12 accepted standards and many were found to be unsatisfactory. After presentation of these results, the 1 year assessment discovered few changes in safety features of the 50 rooms now being used.

Unsafe rooms compromise the safety of staff and patients and this is clearly unacceptable. The audit process in itself failed as amethod of improving standards.

To describe the attitudes of the professionals of a multi-disciplinary crisis intervention service (CIS) towards the service they provide. To establish whether there are differences in attitudes between the different professional disciplines involved. A questionnaire was mailed to all the professionals working in the Barnet CIS (n=94). Differences were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

The overall response rate was 84%. Statistically significant differences were found between the different disciplines in 10 of the 37 questions (27%) on the questionnaire. Opinions differed most on issues of safety and acceptance of clinical responsibility.

Despite general ag reement on most issues, we found differences of opinion in important areas such as arrangements for team safety and clinical responsibility. These differences may create tensions within the multi-disciplinary groups and may influence the attitudes of professionals to crisis work. Measures need to be taken to address these issues in order to improve morale and staff satisfaction.

A repetition after 5 years of a prospective case note audit, looking at the impact of a recently established deliberate self-harm (DSH) assessment team on the quality of DSH assessments at Kettering general hospital.

Aspecialist DSH team achieved improvement in the quality of psychiatric assessments for the majority of patients who harmed themselves. Assessments of mental state by accident and emergency (A & E) and medical staff before referral to the psychiatric team remain problematic.

Setting up aspecialist team to assess patients who harm themselves can improve the quality of the psychiatric care they receive, but emphasis must still be placed on an adequate assessment of mental state by medical and nursing staff in A&E and on medical wards.

General practitioners' (GPs’) informed awareness of the various medical specialities underpins their ability to manage and commission services for their patients. Three questions, relevant to GP practice, to test awareness of child and adolescent mental health services (CHMHS) were developed and sent to 238 GP principals in North Staffordshire. One hundred and seventy-six responded.

Forty-seven per cent had no undergraduate training in CAMHS and 93% had negligible postgraduate experience. Only 27% thought they saw CAMHS cases frequently. Sixty-four per cent usually referred those they saw. Relevant expertise made referral to CAMHS less likely, as did membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Seventythree per cent wanted more training, but only 7% thought training easy to obtain.

These findings confirm the need for child and adolescent psychiatrists to become directly involved in the commissioning of their services and GP training.

To develop and introduce an evidence-based drug treatment protocol for clozapine-induced hypersalivation, a review of published literature relating to clozapine-induced hypersalivation and its treatment was undertaken in March 2000. The databases searched were Medline, EMBASE and PsychLit, from 1966 to the present.

This paper reviews the evidence of the benefit of using antimuscarinic agents, adrenergic antagonists and adrenergic agonists. There is alack of good-quality controlled-trials, with most papers reporting aseries of uncontrolled cases dependent on subjective measures of improvement reported by the patients. However, the published literature suggests a benefit for all of the drug categories reviewed. The most effective treatment may be acombination of terazosin and benzhexol.

Clozapine-induced hypersalivation is not only an embarrassing problem, but can be difficult to treat. An evidence-based prescribing protocol will encourage the use of those drugs found to be the most effective in treating this problem. It will also offer alternatives if acertain treatment is ineffective or intolerable.