All patients who are prescribed antipsychotic medications require annual blood tests which must include Full Blood Count (FBC), Urea and Electrolytes (U&E), eGFR, Lipids (Cholesterol & Triglycerides), Liver Function Test (LFT), HbA1c/Plasma glucose. Some patients also require prolactin blood test depending on their prescribed antipsychotic medication.

NICE and Maudsley guidelines recommend an annual check of the blood tests mentioned above.

This audit ascertained compliance in terms of annual blood test monitoring for patients who take antipsychotic medications and provided recommendations to improve where necessary.

Half of the caseload from two General Adult psychiatry Community Mental Health Teams (CMHT) were recruited from a sample population of 228 patients. Odd number randomisation was applied to select our sample (e.g., 1, 3, 5…). Sample size was of 114 patients, 8 of whom were not prescribed antipsychotic medications and excluded. Hence, 106 patients were identified as representative for inclusion in this audit.

Retrospective data collection was from clinical entries, clinic letters and blood test results.

Data obtained from these patients was collated and analysed using MS Excel spreadsheet.

The audit revealed that compliance was suboptimal for all required blood tests (Compliance 80% or above is recommended). The kidney function test of Urea & Electrolytes was the closest to recommended standards and best performance overall (77%), eGFR, was subpar at 60%. 74% of patients had the glucose monitoring tests (Plasma glucose/HbA1c) done while Full Blood Count and Liver Function Test were both completed in 76 patients (~72%). The worst performing category was Prolactin monitoring, of which only 9 of patients who required this had it done, recording a mere 31%.

Majority (66%) of the blood tests were done at General Practice (GP) surgeries, 25% by Mental Health Services, while the rest were contributed to by Accident & Emergency and Acute Hospital visits.

Following completion of this audit, recommendations were made to advise existing antipsychotic blood monitoring services (GP surgeries and private clinic affiliated with the Trust) of the recommended blood parameters for monitoring, and the need to update current systems. Also, Liaison with service managers and service leads to set up a dedicated physical health clinic for this purpose. The latter has been particularly successful as the Trust is now in the process of recruitment for the new physical health clinic team. A re-audit is planned in the near future.

We aimed to assess risk of COVID-19 infection & seroprotection status in healthcare workers (HCWs) in both hospital and community settings following an intensive vaccination drive in India.

Tertiary Care Hospital

We surveyed COVID-19 exposure risk, personal protective equipment (PPE) compliance, vaccination status, mental health & COVID-19 infection rate across different HCW cadres. Elecsys® test for COVID-19 spike (Anti-SARS-CoV-2S; ACOVs) and nucleocapsid (Anti-SARS-CoV-2; ACOV) responses following vaccination and/or COVID-19 infection were measured in a stratified sample of 386 HCW.

We enrolled 945 HCWs (60.6% male, age 35.9 ± 9.8 years, 352 nurses, 211 doctors, 248 paramedics & 134 support staff). Hospital PPE compliance was 90.8%. Vaccination coverage was 891/945 (94.3%). ACOVs neutralizing antibody was reactive in 381/386 (98.7%). ACOVs titer (U/ml) was higher in the post-COVID-19 infection group (N =269; 242.1 ± 35.7 U/ml) than in the post-vaccine or never infected subgroup (N = 115, 204.1 ± 81.3 U/ml). RT PCR + COVID-19 infections were documented in 224/945 (23.7%) and 6 HCWs had disease of moderate severity, with no deaths. However, 232/386 (60.1%) of HCWs tested positive for nucleocapsid ACOV antibody, suggesting undocumented or subclinical COVID-19 infection. On multivariate logistic regression, only female gender [aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.07–3.0, P = .025] and COVID-19 family contact [aOR 5.1, 95% CI 3.84–9.5, P < .001] were predictors of risk of developing COVID-19 infection, independent of association with patient-related exposure.

Our HCWs were PPE compliant and vaccine motivated, with immunization coverage of 94.3% and seroprotection rate of 98.7%. There was no relationship between HCW COVID-19 infection to exposure characteristics in the hospital. Vaccination reduced disease severity and prevented death in HCW.

This study aims to assess the stress levels, stress busters (stress relievers), and coping mechanisms among Saudi dental practitioners (SDPs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak.

A self-administered questionnaire was sent to SDPs via Google Forms. Cohen’s stress score scale was used for stress evaluation, and the mean scores were compared based on age, gender, qualification, and occupation. In addition, comparisons of the utilization of stress coping mechanisms and stress busters based on gender, age, and occupation were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were carried out using SPSS Version 21.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY).

A total of 206 SDPs (69% males and 31% females) participated in the study. Male SDPs showed a higher score than females (P > 0.05). SDPs around age 50 years and above obtained high stress scores (25 ± 7.4) as compared with other age groups (P < 0.05). The occupational level showed higher stress scores (22.6 ± 4.6 than the other occupation groups (P < 0.05). The majority of the SDPs used watching TV/mobile/computer (80%) as a stress buster, followed by binge eating (64%), exercise (44%), smoking (32%), do-it-yourself (DIY; 23%), and meditation (17%).

SDPs are experiencing stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Male SDPs above age 50 years and private practitioners showed higher levels of stress scores. An overall commonly used stress buster was smoking in males and meditation in females.

To assess ability of National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and CRB-65 calculated at the time of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for predicting ICU mortality in patients of laboratory confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

This prospective data analysis was based on chart reviews for laboratory confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs over a 1-mo period. The NEWS2, CRB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS were calculated from the first recorded vital signs upon admission to ICU and assessed for predicting mortality.

Total of 140 patients aged between 18 and 95 y were included in the analysis of whom majority were >60 y (47.8%), with evidence of pre-existing comorbidities (67.1%). The most common symptom at presentation was dyspnea (86.4%). Based upon the receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC), the best discriminatory power to predict ICU mortality was for the CRB-65 (AUC: 0.720 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.630-0.811]) followed closely by NEWS2 (AUC: 0.712 [95% CI: 0.622-0.803]). Additionally, a multivariate Cox regression model showed Glasgow Coma Scale score at time of admission (P < 0.001; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.808 [95% CI: 0.715-0.911]) to be the only significant predictor of ICU mortality.

CRB-65 and NEWS2 scores assessed at the time of ICU admission offer only a fair discriminatory value for predicting mortality. Further evaluation after adding laboratory markers such as C-reactive protein and D-dimer may yield a more useful prediction model. Much of the earlier data is from developed countries and uses scoring at time of hospital admission. This study was from a developing country, with the scores assessed at time of ICU admission, rather than the emergency department as with existing data from developed countries, for patients with moderate/severe COVID-19 disease. Because the scores showed some utility for predicting ICU mortality even when measured at time of ICU admission, their use in allocation of limited ICU resources in a developing country merits further research.

To understand whether mental health patients vote in government elections

To ascertain the barriers that prevent them from doing so

To explore ways in which mental health services can support patients to vote

To determine whether mental health staff are aware of patients’ right to vote

Members of Parliament (MPs) can influence decisions regarding the National Health Service (NHS) and mental health legislation. The general election on 12th December 2019 highlighted that many patients were not using their democratic right to vote. It also appeared that many staff members were not aware that patients under the Mental Health Act (MHA) were entitled to vote (except for those under ‘forensic’ sections of the MHA). We therefore conducted a survey to ascertain both patient and staff understanding of their democratic rights and to better understand how we could increase the rate of voting amongst psychiatric patients.

Two questionnaires were produced, one for patients and the other for staff members. This was tested by the clinical governance team before approval was granted. Data were collected at the Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust in the form of paper forms or electronically through a survey website. Forty-two patients and twenty-five staff members responded.

No staff members had received formal training with regards to patients’ right to vote. Over half of staff members incorrectly believed that patients under Section 2 or 3 of the MHA and those lacking capacity couldn't vote. More than half of the team members surveyed stated that they had not supported patients in registering or casting a vote. Roughly one third of healthcare professionals felt that it was their responsibility to promote patients’ right to vote, with one third disagreeing and the remaining third unsure.

Over 75% of patients did not vote but less than one quarter of all patients surveyed felt support from mental health services would increase the likelihood of them voting. The main barriers to voting were being mentally unwell, hospital admission or a lack of knowledge on the candidates and election process.

Basic training is required to improve staff knowledge of patients’ voting rights, which should help improve their ability to support patients to vote. Trusts should have a clear protocol in place in the event of future elections, with information on who can vote, how to request a postal vote and the candidates in that area.