Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:34:14.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing Adherence to Antipsychotic Prescribing and Monitoring Guidelines in a Psychiatric Unit for Older Adult Females in Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT): A Retrospective Audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Maria Moisan*
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom
Bianca Dixon
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom
Ayebatonye Ajiteru
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Antipsychotic medications are commonly used in the management of psychiatric disorders, including in older adults. However, the use of these medications in older adults can be associated with a higher risk of adverse effects such as cardiovascular event and extrapyramidal symptoms.

This retrospective audit aimed to evaluate adherence to antipsychotic prescribing and monitoring guidelines in a Psychiatric Unit for Older Adult Females in Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT).

Methods

The audit criteria encompassed various aspects of documentation and medication management, including diagnosis documentation, indication, age, comorbidities, consent, baseline assessments, monitoring, review, and follow-up care. Data from two months’ records were analysed leading to an action plan with slight amendments to the user-friendly template for ward round and a physical health monitoring poster for junior doctors and ward staff. These initiatives aim to improve patient care, streamline documentation, while accommodating the rotation of junior doctors. A re-audit is planned post implementation.

This audit’s limitations included the study’s single-site nature, potential sample size constraints and reliance on accurate documentation.

Results

The audit achieved 100% compliance in documenting patient age and MHA status, meeting legal requirements. Weight, BMI, and baseline blood pressure exhibited full compliance. Baseline ECGs had an 86.66% compliance rate, while QTc interval documentation reached 100%. Antipsychotic indication and weekly reviews were documented at 100%, with an 83.33% rate for rationale documentation for medication changes. Comorbidities were fully documented, but extrapyramidal symptom and sedation monitoring showed a 46.66% compliance rate. Baseline blood tests, including glucose, bA1c, lipid profile, electrolytes, renal and liver function, thyroid function, and prolactin levels, generally had high compliance, but lipid profile and liver function achieved 73.33%. Repeat blood tests varied, with electrolytes and renal function at 100%, while thyroid function and prolactin levels scored lower at 26.66% and 46.66%. Continued monitoring of weight, BMI, and blood pressure remained fully compliant. Compliance for repeating ECGs within recommended timeframes reached 53.33%, and recommendations to GPs for yearly ECGs and blood monitoring achieved 50%.

Conclusion

In summary, the audit identified areas of commendable high and medium compliance with antipsychotic prescribing guidelines in a Psychiatric Unit for Older Adult Females in KMPT. An action plan has been formulated to not only enhance patient care but also to refine the documentation process positively further, fostering continued progress in the provision of high-quality care.

Type
5 Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (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 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.