Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T20:25:49.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving Allergy Status Documentation on Electronic Patient Records- a Trust-Wide In-Patient Quality Improvement Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Natalie Cook*
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Walsall, United Kingdom
Aparna Prasanna
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Rhea Mathews
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Josh Cabada
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Meghnaa Hebbar
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Shakeel Jaffar
Affiliation:
Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, West Bromwich, United Kingdom
*
*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

NICE guideline CG183 states that “both the drug and the description of the reaction must be documented on all forms of prescription and in a patient's medical records”. Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (BCPNFT) documents allergy status on both paper drug charts and the Electronic Patient Record“"Ri”" (EPR). Incomplete Allergy Status on EPR poses a significant patient safety risk, particularly in an era of hybrid working and out of hours input from remotely based clinicians. The standard for this audit is that 100% of drug charts and Rio notes should have allergy status documented. The BCPNFT is a collection of psychiatric services across four towns- Dudley, Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton. The aim was to ensure consistent practice and standards across all sites. Following the initial data collection, discussion of findings and Action Plan (AP), and to ensure consistent standards, it was agreed to expand the project to include all General Adult in-patient units.

Methods

A data collection tool was designed collaboratively with the QI Department, to capture demographics, diagnosis, admission duration, legal status and allergy status both written and digital. This tool applied for all 96 older adult in-patients across the four localities within the trust on 03.10.22. The only exclusion criteria was admission within 24 hours of the data collection date.

Results

Data Collection: 100% of Paper Drug Charts had allergy status documented, only 70% have type or severity of allergic reaction documented. Despite 76% of in-patients admission of 4 weeks or longer, only 62% of patients had their allergy status documented on EPR, this varied from 30-100% across individual wards. EPR allergy status documented: Wolverhampton 93% West Bromwich 100% Dudley 33% Walsall 39%

Conclusion

The results from all four localities were presented at the respective locality post graduate teaching, the EPR configuration team meeting and the QI Group meeting to gain Multi-Disciplinary Team feedback for both low documentation rates and high variability across sites. Based on this feedback, the AP comprised of incorporating an Allergy Status prompt into the electronic clerking document, visual prompts of stickers and posters across all wards. Also, liaising with Pharmacy to request they also update the allergy status on EPR; and Ward Matrons who have added an Allergy Status alert onto their bed state view. Data will then recollected post AP interventions, across all older and working age adult inpatient wards- a sample size of around 300 patients. The second data collection is currently being undertaken.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.