scholarly journals On-call medical seclusion reviews: are we meeting MHA code of practice (COP) requirements?

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S109-S109
Author(s):  
Oliver Turner ◽  
David Leung
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Junior Doctor ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
State Observation ◽  
Junior Trainee ◽  
Medication Side ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Harm To Others

AimsAre Junior Trainee, Medical Seclusion Reviews complaint with MHA COP Criteria?ObjectivesAre we seeing newly secluded patients on time?Are we documenting these reviews in clinical notes?Do documented reviews meet criteria stated by the MHA COP 26.133?Are we informing Higher Trainees of the need for MDT reviews?BackgroundSeclusion is an important aspect of inpatient care. MHA COP Chapter 26 provides guidance for documenting seclusion reviews, ensuring safeguards are in place to protect patient's safety and human rights. Secluded patients require a medical review within 1 hour, and four hourly thereafter, until a higher trainee or Consultant undertake an MDT Review. In our Trust, LYPFT, trainees undertake these reviews. There is noted discrepancy in seclusion review documentation. This audit identifies our compliance with time limits, and whether documentation meets the required criteria in the MHA Code of PracticeMethodOur Sample includes all Out-of-Hour Junior Trainee Medical Seclusion Reviews between 01/01/20 and 01/04/20 at LYPFT. Seclusions were identified from on call logs, and clinical notes were reviewed for a documented seclusion review. The date and time of seclusion are recorded, whether a 1 or 4 hourly review, and the time of review. We recorded any mention of: physical health; mental state; observation levels; recent medication; medication side effects; risk to others; risk to self and the need for ongoing seclusion.Result56 episodes of seclusion were identified; all 56 had a documented medical seclusion review. 49 reviews were on time, 4 were late with a documented reason, and 3 were late without. There was documentation of the Higher Trainee being informed in 53 reviews.No seclusion reviews mentioned all MHA COP criteria. We more frequently mentioned patients’ physical health (51), psychiatric health (52) and need for seclusion (54). 46 seclusion reviews mentioned risk of harm to others; only 3 mentioned risk of self-harm. 25 seclusion reviews mentioned medication, and 5 mentioned review for side effects. 5 seclusion reviews mentioned observation levels.ConclusionOur Junior Doctor Seclusion Reviews were not meeting the MHA Code of Practice Criteria, and we believe this to largely be due to lack of awareness of the standards. As such, results have been disseminated to Junior trainees in weekly teaching. We created a medical seclusion review template, adopted by the Trust, to ensure documentation compliance with the MHA COP. Junior doctor inductions now include a presentation regarding Seclusion, the reviews and documentation. We will re-audit in 12 months.

scholarly journals The improvement of the quality of medical reviews of patients in seclusion in Rampton Hospital

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S333-S333
Author(s):  
Emma McPhail ◽  
Ian Yanson
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
List Type ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Retrospective Audit ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Mental And Physical Health

AimsImprove and standardise the quality of medical seclusion reviews (MSRs).Acknowledge existing good practise.Highlight areas for improvement.Improve the awareness of doctors performing MSRs of the requirements in the Mental Health Act Code of Practice (MHA CoP)BackgroundMSRs are an essential clinical tool to ensure safe and consistent patient care. Patients detained in seclusion can be at heightened risk of poor mental and physical health, in addition to being a risk to themselves and others. There is clear guidance in the MHA CoP regarding what areas require to be covered in a MSR.MethodA retrospective audit of all MSRs in September 2019 across all patients within all directorates within Rampton Hospital was undertaken. 281 inpatients were identified within Rampton Hospital, and 61 of these patients were found to have had seclusion in September 2019. A total of 439 MSRs were identified for these patients.The standard applied was the MHA CoP guidance for MSRs: 1)MSRs should be conducted in person, and should include:2)Review of physical health3)Review of psychiatric health4)Assessment of the adverse effects of medication5)Review of observations required6)Reassessment of medication prescribed7)Assessment of the patient's risk to others8)Assessment of the patient's risk of self-harm9)Assessment of the need for continuing seclusion100% compliance with targets or a reason why it was not possible was expected to be documented.ResultThe results show there is a large variation in compliance with the MHA CoP. The area with the highest compliance was the completion of reviews in person-(99.3%). The criterion with the average worst compliance was whether the need for physical observations was reviewed-(4.3%). Physical health was reviewed in 86.1% of cases, in contrast to psychiatric health at 38.3%. The adverse effects of medication and reassessment of medication prescribed were recorded in only 8.9%. The risk from the patient to others was recorded in 25.3%, whereas risk to self was recorded in 10.7%. The need for continuing seclusion was recorded in 72.7%.ConclusionThe quality of MSRs at Rampton Hospital is currently inadequate. Improvement in practice is required to meet accepted standards and ensure safe, consistent patient care. Ways to improve this are being considered, including improving the knowledge of the MHA CoP and providing a MSR template.

Analyzing Language in Suicide Notes and Legacy Tokens

Crisis ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Egnoto ◽  
Darrin J. Griffin
Keyword(s):  
Text Analysis ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Automated Identification ◽  
Completed Suicide ◽  
Suicide Notes ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Harm To Others

Abstract. Background: Identifying precursors that will aid in the discovery of individuals who may harm themselves or others has long been a focus of scholarly research. Aim: This work set out to determine if it is possible to use the legacy tokens of active shooters and notes left from individuals who completed suicide to uncover signals that foreshadow their behavior. Method: A total of 25 suicide notes and 21 legacy tokens were compared with a sample of over 20,000 student writings for a preliminary computer-assisted text analysis to determine what differences can be coded with existing computer software to better identify students who may commit self-harm or harm to others. Results: The results support that text analysis techniques with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) tool are effective for identifying suicidal or homicidal writings as distinct from each other and from a variety of student writings in an automated fashion. Conclusion: Findings indicate support for automated identification of writings that were associated with harm to self, harm to others, and various other student writing products. This work begins to uncover the viability or larger scale, low cost methods of automatic detection for individuals suffering from harmful ideation.

Abstract 234: Treatment Satisfaction Levels among Adults with Concomitant Conditions of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen M Fox ◽  
Susan Grandy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Diabetes Medication ◽  
Medication Therapy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Medication Side

Objective: This investigation evaluated the satisfaction with therapy for adults with the concomitant conditions of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension (HTN). Methods: Respondents to the US S tudy to H elp I mprove E arly evaluation and management of risk factors L eading to D iabetes (SHIELD) 2009 survey reported their disease conditions, current medications, and satisfaction with therapy. Respondents reporting T2DM with concomitant HTN were identified. Current medications were catalogued, as respondents referred to their prescription bottles to record the name of each medication. Therapy satisfaction was captured with 3 separate questions as satisfaction/dissatisfaction with: 1) ability of the medication to prevent or treat your condition, 2) side effects of the medication, and 3) the medication overall; and scored using a 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied) scale for heart disease treatment and diabetes treatment, separately. Scores of 0-2 were categorized as dissatisfied, score of 3 was neutral and scores 4-5 were satisfied. Results: A total of 911 adults with T2DM and HTN reported their satisfaction with therapy. For those who were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication (n = 63), 52.6% were also dissatisfied with their heart disease medication's ability to treat their HTN, 64.5% were dissatisfied with the side effects of their heart medications, and 61.9% were dissatisfied with their heart medication overall. For those who were dissatisfied with their heart disease medication (n = 59), 74.5% were also dissatisfied with their diabetes medication's ability to treat their diabetes, 56.6% were dissatisfied with the side effects of their diabetes medication, and 66.1% were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication overall. Conclusions: Although most respondents with T2DM and HTN were satisfied with their treatment, dissatisfaction with treatment for one condition was associated with therapy dissatisfaction in the other condition. Approximately 53%-65% of respondents who were dissatisfied with their diabetes medication were also dissatisfied with their HTN medication overall and in the ability to treat the condition and medication side effects.

scholarly journals Audit of physical health monitoring during initiation and ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medication in a tier 3 outpatient CAMHS service, Belfast

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S323-S324
Author(s):  
Pam Hamlyn ◽  
Aaron McMenamin ◽  
Hilary Boyd ◽  
Lara Patton
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Antipsychotic Medication ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Electronic System ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Medication Monitoring ◽  
Tier 3 ◽  
Health Parameters

AimsTo evidence that physical health monitoring during antipsychotic initiation and continued treatment within the Child and Family Clinic is current, as per the agreed Antipsychotic Medication Monitoring Schedule for Belfast Trust CAMHS (2015), supporting Quality Network for Community CAMHS(QNCC) accreditation.BackgroundThe Antipsychotic Medication Monitoring Schedule CAMHS(2015) was agreed by a working group of consultant psychiatrists and pharmacists, based on evidence from The Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children (CAMSEA), NICE Guidelines CG 185(2014), CG155(2013) and Maudsley Guidelines, and was to be located on the electronic system (PARIS).MethodIn January 2019, a list of all children/young people on antipsychotic medication was collated (n = 12). Presence of the monitoring schedule in the clinical notes or PARIS was recorded. The Electronic Care Record was reviewed for blood results and PARIS letters for documentation of physical health parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, height, weight, BMI, extrapyramidal side effects, ECG) and to identify documentation of risk/benefit review where monitoring was declined. Re-audit January 2020 (n = 9). Criteria:All patients commenced on antipsychotic medication will have baseline blood investigations and other physical health parameters documented as per the monitoring schedule. If monitoring was declined, the reason for this and indications for prescribing must be documented as a risk/benefit analysis.All patients on antipsychotic medication will be current with their physical health Monitoring Schedule.All patients will have their Monitoring Schedule completed in clinical notes or on PARIS.ResultFirst cycle results (n = 12):Baseline bloods (or documented declined) = 92%, Baseline ECG (or documented declined) = 75%Complete monitoring bloods = 33%, Physical health monitoring parameters complete = 42%Monitoring schedule present in the notes and current = 42% (0% on PARIS).Initial Recommendations: Standardised recording of monitoring using PARIS clinic letters and the schedule in front of clinical notes; Baseline ECG mandatorySecond cycle results (n = 9):Baseline bloods (or declined) = 89%, Baseline ECG (or declined) = 67%Complete monitoring bloods = 44%, Physical health monitoring parameters complete = 56%Monitoring schedule present in notes and current = 38%, Present, not current = 50% (0% on PARIS).ConclusionLower numbers at re-audit limit interpretation.Further recommendations: Antipsychotic initiation checklist; Central bloods diary for clinicians; Antipsychotic care-pathway booklet, co-produced with young people, incorporating the monitoring schedule.

scholarly journals Off-label prescribing of quetiapine in south locality crisis teams

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S87-S87
Author(s):  
Mamta Kumari ◽  
Arun Kumar Gupta ◽  
Peter Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Psychotropic Medicines

AimsThe audit was carried out to determine the frequency of off label prescribing of quetiapine and compliance with standards within Trust Policy (UHM PGN 02 PPT PGN 08) – Physical Health Monitoring of Patients Prescribed Antipsychotics and other Psychotropic Medicines, NICE CG178, General Medical Council Ethical Standards and Royal College of Psychiatrists – College Report CR210.The main objectives of the audit were to determine if:Patients have been appropriately informed of off-label status and consent recorded.Alternative licensed treatment first used/ruled out.Appropriate communication on transfer of care.Appropriate physical health monitoring completed.BackgroundQuetiapine is associated with various physical side effects. Patients should be fully informed of the expected risks and benefits of treatment, and the limited evidence base for off-label prescribing.There are additional issues around the transfer of prescribing to primary care.MethodThe sample consisted of 50 consecutive patients selected from the crisis team caseload in the month of December 2018.Data reviewed in this audit were taken from six months period.Records audited were obtained from RiO (electronic records) and prescription charts.Data collection was started in January 2019 and completed in March 2019The audit tool was a dichotomous scale questionnaire based on NICE guidelines.Result4 patients from the sample (8%) were prescribed off-label quetiapine.100% had physical health monitoring completed as per Trust policy.100% off-label indication been clearly documented in notes.100% Consent to treatment was documented.100% had medication reviewed in the previous 6 months.75% had licensed medication used or ruled out before considering off-label quetiapine use25% risks/benefits of treatment were documented as part of a patient discussion.25% had documented evidence that alternative treatment options were discussed.25% had documented evidence of Community consultant/GP consent/agreement was obtained before transfer of prescribing75% had a documented plan for review of quetiapine for treatment efficacy and side effects50% had a documented plan in place for ongoing physical health monitoringConclusionSuggested a wider audit may be required with greater patient numbers and which specifically filters for patients prescribed quetiapine.Audit result has been shared with Crisis team members, Medicines Optimisation Committee and South Locality Quality Standards Committee in the trust.

scholarly journals Off-licence use of clozapine in patients with emotionally unstable personality disorder: a case series analysis

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S116-S116
Author(s):  
Declan Hyland ◽  
Alex Walmsley ◽  
Victoria Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Psychotherapeutic Treatment ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder

ObjectiveThis retrospective case series followed emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) patients following initiation of clozapine on an off-licence basis, aiming to examine tolerance by determining side effect prevalence and treatment cessation frequency, as well as examining efficacy, by investigating number of hospital re-admissions and symptom control.Case reportThis case series captured the experiences of 11 EUPD patients under the care of Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, all of whom had, at some time in the past five years, been initiated on clozapine. All patients were white British females, with a median age of 31. The median daily dose of clozapine was 300 mg. Most patients had significant psychiatric comorbidities, as well as illicit substance and / or alcohol misuse.Whilst prescribed clozapine, patients were only admitted to hospital once on average and this was commonly for clozapine re-titration. Whilst in hospital, rates of self-harm were low, but ligaturing and suicide attempts showed higher prevalence. Patients still demonstrated self-harming behaviour out of hospital leading to A and E presentations. In the community, contacts with the police were minimal, with only two patients undergoing Section 136 assessments or arrests.All patients reported side effects from clozapine - usually hypersalivation, over-sedation and constipation. All 11 patients experienced sinus tachycardia. Eight patients temporarily ceased taking clozapine at some point. In three patients, discontinuation of clozapine was as a result of intolerable side effects. Three patients experienced neutropenia, which subsequently resolved. Only two patients had a body mass index within healthy range.DiscussionDespite patients reporting clozapine to provide symptomatic benefit for their EUPD, and improved their engagement with mental health services, prevalence of self-harm and of A and E presentations remained high, indicating the importance of community support and concomitant psychotherapeutic treatment. Patients with more robust community support showed greater adherence to clozapine.High prevalence of side effects and obesity in these patients, in addition to risk of developing neutropenia, highlights the importance of rigorous monitoring after initiating clozapine. It is reassuring that, despite development of neutropenia in some patients, this recovered quickly, and clozapine treatment could resume.ConclusionClozapine may be an effective pharmacological treatment for enabling EUPD patients to engage more therapeutically with services. Clozapine may be of greater benefit to those with more stable, less chaotic lives. Although diminished, patients still show self-harming behaviour and need for A and E admissions and re-hospitalisation. Side effects of clozapine are common and regular monitoring is required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document