Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:35:36.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Keeping Up Standards: An Audit of Adherence to Admission Standards on Acute Mental Health Wards in NHS Lanarkshire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Louisa Adam
Affiliation:
University Hospital Wishaw, NHS Lanarkshire, United Kingdom
Shaina Dillon*
Affiliation:
University Hospital Hairmyres, NHS Lanarkshire, United Kingdom
Emma Docherty
Affiliation:
Woodland View, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, United Kingdom
Francesca Guarino
Affiliation:
NHS Education for Scotland, NHS Lanarkshire, United Kingdom
Leanne Lindsay
Affiliation:
University Hospital Wishaw, NHS Lanarkshire, 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

We audited the adherence to part of the minimum admission standards for Mental Health, Learning Disabilities and Addictions Services (MHLDA) for 6 acute wards, across two sites (UHH and UHW) in NHS Lanarkshire. We focussed on the section of the standards that the admitting junior doctor/ANP is responsible for. This comprised:

  • An admission assessment (including presenting complaint, history of current episode of illness, medication, mental state examination and risk assessment).

  • Physical health assessment (examination, bloods, ECG, VTE assessment), medicine reconciliation and prescribing on HEPMA - within 12 hours.

Methods

Five individuals collected data across both sites and both cycles. For our first cycle, all admissions in March 2023 were retrospectively reviewed, a total of 94 admissions (UHH 47, UHW 47). Electronic notes/systems were reviewed (Morse, Clinical Portal, Hepma, Trakcare).

This first cycle demonstrated poor adherence to the minimum admissions standards. A proforma for admission statement was created, including prompts for the admission assessment and for the components of the physical health assessment, medicines reconciliation and prescribing. Presentations were made at postgraduate teaching and at ANP teaching. The majority of people were unaware of the existence of the admission standards or did not know where to find them. The admission standards document and the proforma were circulated via email and added to the shared R drive. A second cycle was completed, reviewing all admissions in July 2023, a total of 74 admissions (UHH 41, UHW 33). The proforma has now been included in the induction material for new doctors.

Results

Following interventions, there was improvement in completion of admission statement (90% vs 81%). There was improvement in the inclusion of all components, most notably MSE (91% vs 71%) and risk assessment (59% vs 18%). Where the proforma was used (57%), all aspects of admission statement were present (97–100%). When not used, there was variable inclusion of the different components (7–90%). There was improvement in the completion of all components of physical health assessment (except small decrease in medicine reconciliation). In every case of missing components with no documentation as to why, the proforma had not been used.

Conclusion

Development of a proforma for admission assessment has led to improved completion of admission assessment, physical health assessment, medicines reconciliation and prescribing within 12 hours. Qualitative feedback is being sought on the proforma from junior doctors, ANPs and senior medics to guide next steps and further improvements. Review of the admissions standards guidance is now due.

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.