Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:46:33.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Monitoring side-effects of antipsychotics using the glasgow antipsychotic side-effect scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

James Sterritt*
Affiliation:
Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
*
*corresponding 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 drugs frequently produce side-effects which represent common reasons for noncompliance. National guidelines, published by the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry, stipulate that patients prescribed antipsychotic drugs should be reviewed for side-effects on a weekly basis. This completed audit cycle, conducted on a mixed acute general adult psychiatric ward, examined whether patients were being assessed for side-effects of antipsychotic drugs using a standardised, self-reporting scale – the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale (GASS) – as per national guidelines. As identification of side-effects is important in tailoring treatment to improve compliance, auditing monitoring practice was important in realising these outcomes.

Method

Retrospectively, 26 inpatients were identified over a two-month period who were prescribed antipsychotic drugs. Their notes were reviewed for documented weekly GASS scores for the duration of antipsychotic treatment. Initial data demonstrated 0% compliance with guidelines, as no patients completed a weekly GASS. The intervention to improve compliance was a training session for ward staff on implementing the GASS. Data were subsequently collected prospectively over three weeks for 15 patients.

Result

Seven patients completed the GASS weekly over three weeks, representing 47% compliance. Two patients (13%) completed two forms, three (20%) completed one form, and three (20%) completed no forms. There was a positive correlation between being offered the GASS and completing it – only one patient declined to complete it and was not offered it during the third week. Of the remaining 14 patients, if the GASS was offered there was 100% rate of completion. Staff did not offer the GASS to every patient each week, which accounted for most cases of non-completion. Some patients with pre-existing symptoms of physical illnesses included these on the GASS, which complicated interpretation. Future interventions could include further staff education, and involving a ward pharmacist to review results during medication reviews to optimise treatment compliance, as no medication changes resulted directly from patients completing the GASS.

Conclusion

Compliance with completing the GASS weekly improved following staff education, identifying the main factor affecting compliance as staff not offering the GASS to patients. Patients generally engaged well with side-effect monitoring, as most completed the GASS when offered. Further staff education may produce even greater compliance with guidelines, and involving pharmacy staff to review GASS scores and inform medication choices may lead to use of the GASS resulting in more tolerable and effective treatment plans.

Type
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.