Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:36:09.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

High Dose Antipsychotic Therapy Prescription Amongst Patients Admitted to the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), Mill View Hospital, Hove

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Dorcas Awolaran*
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, West Sussex, United Kingdom
Samina Monir
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, West Sussex, 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

Acutely ill patients on PICU are likely to be on High dose antipsychotic treatment (HDAT), which poses a risk to their physical health. Current guidelines require that appropriate criteria be met before prescription, and close physical health monitoring after prescription of HDAT. This audit aims to assess practices regarding prescription of HDAT to patients on PICU, Mill View Hospital, Hove according to standard guidelines.

Methods

Ten of the 38 patients admitted to PICU at Mill View Hospital between January and June 2023 were on HDAT and thus were eligible for this audit. The revised prescribing observatory for mental health topic 1h 3e audit tool was used to collect data regarding the patients. Data was collected from the clinical records including electronic, paper notes and uploaded drug charts and forms.

Results

The age range was between 21–56 with an average age of 35. Eight of the 10 patients were white British, 2 were of another ethnic group or ethnicity unknown. All the 10 patients had clinical reasons for HDAT prescription clearly documented at the start of the treatment which ranged from cross titration of antipsychotics to treatment resistance to standard treatments.

Of the 10 patients on HDAT, 6 of them had documented clinical review in the 3 months, 1 had documented clinical review in last 3 to 6 months, 3 had no clearly documented review of clinical response in the last year.

Only 7 out of 10 had their temperature, pulse, blood pressure, body mass index and electrocardiogram (ECG) clearly documented. Seven of the 10 patients had their full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, blood glucose, plasma lipid tests done and clearly documented in last year. Eight of the 10 patients had their serum prolactin checked while none of the patients had their creatinine phosphokinase checked and clearly documented in the last year. Only 2 of the patients had clearly documented examination of extrapyramidal side effects (EPSE) in the last one year.

Conclusion

This audit demonstrates that although clinical reasons for HDAT prescription were documented for all patients, current standard guidelines for HDAT prescription regarding regular review and physical health monitoring were either not being met, or not clearly documented.

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.