the letter responds to criticisms of the British National Formulary (bnf) by clarifying its role and policies. the author, anne b. prasad, explains that the bnf doses for depixol injection reflect the data sheet doses approved by the uk licensing authority. the bnf is a reference tool for general practice, produced by a joint formulary committee including representatives from the british medical association, the royal pharmaceutical society, and the department of health. while individual drug monographs follow data sheet requirements, the preamble reflects the committee's independent view. the committee uses expert clinicians to provide guidelines. the author also clarifies that the royal college consensus group has not been critical of the bnf but has welcomed its cooperation. the bnf is in line with clinical guidelines for lithium. the letter also addresses a study by brian o'shea, noting that the national schizophrenia fellowship did not respond to inquiries. another letter discusses a study on neuroleptic usage in acute patients, where p.r.n. prescribing was found to exceed bnf dose guidelines. the audit found that 68% of patients were on neuroleptics, with some receiving multiple medications and p.r.n. prescriptions. the author suggests that a time limit on p.r.n. medication could prevent errors. a third letter comments on a study that failed to receive a response from the national schizophrenia fellowship, highlighting the lack of communication with voluntary schizophrenia organizations. the author notes that in their own study, relatives of patients with schizophrenia were interviewed, and their views were sought.the letter responds to criticisms of the British National Formulary (bnf) by clarifying its role and policies. the author, anne b. prasad, explains that the bnf doses for depixol injection reflect the data sheet doses approved by the uk licensing authority. the bnf is a reference tool for general practice, produced by a joint formulary committee including representatives from the british medical association, the royal pharmaceutical society, and the department of health. while individual drug monographs follow data sheet requirements, the preamble reflects the committee's independent view. the committee uses expert clinicians to provide guidelines. the author also clarifies that the royal college consensus group has not been critical of the bnf but has welcomed its cooperation. the bnf is in line with clinical guidelines for lithium. the letter also addresses a study by brian o'shea, noting that the national schizophrenia fellowship did not respond to inquiries. another letter discusses a study on neuroleptic usage in acute patients, where p.r.n. prescribing was found to exceed bnf dose guidelines. the audit found that 68% of patients were on neuroleptics, with some receiving multiple medications and p.r.n. prescriptions. the author suggests that a time limit on p.r.n. medication could prevent errors. a third letter comments on a study that failed to receive a response from the national schizophrenia fellowship, highlighting the lack of communication with voluntary schizophrenia organizations. the author notes that in their own study, relatives of patients with schizophrenia were interviewed, and their views were sought.